Agenda item
TO RECEIVE WRITTEN QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
The questions which have been received from members of the public for this Council meeting are set out in the attached report. A maximum period of 20 minutes is allocated to this agenda item.
Minutes:
The following questions and in each case (except where indicated) a supplementary question were put, and were responded to by the relevant Executive Member:-
6.1 Question from Ms Margaret Bradley:
Why are the leaseholder services provided by Tower Hamlets Homes so dreadful?
Response by Councillor Rabina Khan, Cabinet Member for Housing and Development.
Thank you Margaret for your question. First of all apologies on behalf of myself and the Administration for the way Tower Hamlets Homes have conducted themselves with you. The Leasehold Services Department at Tower Hamlets Homes has been performing poorly but when the Leasehold Service was with the Council it was quite severe as well. I understand your concerns about Tower Hamlets Homes’ services particularly in light of the major works charges. I’ve already received 2 petitions in relation to the major works charges and how we can rectify our current policies to ensure people like yourselves are able to pay on a long term plan as well.
In terms of transparency and the quality of work that’s taking place within Tower Hamlets Homes in relation to major works charges, I wanted to cite you an example. Previously before I became a Councillor, there was a particular block near where I lived where decent homes work took place under the pilot project. Subsequently those leaseholders came to see me a year and a half later and I instructed a surveyor to inspect the property and to make sure that the work that took place and the major works was correct.
Unfortunately it was found that the work that took place needed to be redone again because the repointing and several other things were not carried out by the contractor. Subsequently I pulled that contractor back in to address the concerns of the leaseholders and we’re looking forward to actually addressing the fact that they can be compensated but that’s a little example of the things that we’re doing. In terms of service charges, that is also something that the Mayor and I discuss and as part of that pledge we’re also developing the dispute resolution panel which was actually in the borough at one time but got disbanded a few years ago well before I became a Councillor.
In terms of the dispute resolution panel this is something for you to take your service charges including the major works charges so that you can put your case forward as well. Including on top of that we also will be holding a referendum which is part of the Mayor’s pledge to see whether or not leaseholders and tenants will judge whether or not the ALMO should stay outside or be bought back into the Council. And finally I hold surgeries; I would welcome you to come to my surgery so I can look at your concerns and make sure that you are charged correctly.
Summary of supplementary question from Ms Bradley
When you took over from the GLC which was in 1986 I believe up until we had the work done in 2011, you done nothing to our block. Absolutely nothing, although when I bought my flat it was down on there that you were supposed to do the work that we got charged for by about 2004. It’s not the only thing I went and saw Councillor Aston last year about. I’m getting constant leaks from upstairs. Our Estate Officer doesn’t seem to have a clue what her responsibilities are. I’ve had a leak now going on for about 7 months which is just about being sorted out finally. How do you expect us to pay a service charge when we get very little service?
Summary of Councillor Rabina Khan’s response to the supplementary question
Thank you Margaret for the supplementary you were quite right. The GLC leases were very complex at the time and when it came to the Council it became more complicated as well. As an ex leaseholder myself, I understand the problems that you’re facing in terms of service charges and major works charges as well.
In terms of the leak that you’ve experienced, one of the things I’ve realised is that with the Right to Buy that’s been introduced in the borough again and all over the country, there is an increase of leaseholders. And the fact is we also need to look at policies whether or not we should have policies for resident leaseholders and an alternative policy for absentee leaseholders. Because it is often the commercial leaseholders who leave their tenants and who are responsible for the tenants. And it could be in your case it’s an ex leaseholder who’s got a tenant upstairs but in that case we do ought to look at policies whereby there is a different policy for resident leaseholders and commercial leaseholders as well.
And as I said before in terms of the service charges and in terms of what you’re facing I would be more than willing to sit with you and go through the form of transparency that needs to be adhered to. And particularly the fact there may be the possibility of an additional surveyor to inspect the properties and why the work didn’t take place since 1986.
6.2 Question from Mr P.B. Prasad:
We believe that the East End Homes (EEH) have not met their responsibilities under the terms and spirit of the transfer of stock agreement as outlined in the 34 clauses of the main documents which they signed back in 2006. They seem to have flouted the promise to make improvements to the Holland Estate. Despite this blatant disregard, the company – EEH – wishes to now demolish our homes to make a profit which we fully oppose and will fight against. We know that the Mayor Rahman and Tower Hamlets First is a listening administration and have a strong track record on housing related matters nationally. With this in mind, could the Executive Member shed some light on the conduct of EEH and their plans and whether the Council think that it is the right approach by East End Homes to deal with our housing stock and the local residents in such an irresponsible way?
Response by Councillor Rabina Khan, Cabinet Member for Housing & Development.
Thank you Mr Prasad for bringing this petition to the Council. I understand from East End Homes that they are actually carrying out a survey and a consultation process in line with advice that they received from their Board that residents wanted regeneration to take place. This exercise has been continuing with a survey to consult with residents and leaseholders and East End Homes were asked to initiate that exercise in early 2014. While it was being undertaken, it emerged that many of the residents didn’t want this to take place, that demolition wasn’t wanted on the estate and we’ve been following this closely.
As I understand of today, no decision has been made in terms of demolition or regeneration of the Holland Estate. And I think what ought to be remembered is in our transfer document we did not agree to any demolition. It was only regeneration and that is the promise they ought to adhere to. And I promise you today, working with Councillors Robbani and Suluk, to ensure that we work with the residents of the Holland Estate so that your concerns are brought to light. And if you don’t want the demolition that ought to be what was promised in the transfer document, that is what you ought to be entitled to.
Summary of supplementary question from Mr Prasad
Yes I’m very grateful to you for that but just about 3 weeks ago, there was a local board meeting and there were 15 board members present there. Out of 15, 13 people voted against that. This was recorded and still it was made very clear that we do not want any demolition and we wanted the withdrawal of Section 20 Notice. But they disregarded and they kept on saying that some residents want the demolition. We do not know who because you know we have conducted house to house meeting with all the residents and every single person, every single resident, leaseholder or the tenant they do not want the demolition. So if they have the board meeting and 13 members out of 15 voted against it, then the matter should have been dropped.
Summary of Councillor Rabina Khan’s response to the supplementary question
I will be writing to East End Homes following this Council meeting to put the Council’s viewpoint that, in the transfer document demolition was not agreed. It would only be regeneration. Demolition can only be agreed if the residents, leaseholders and tenants want it there as well. But as far as we’re concerned from the Council, the transfer document clearly states no demolition, only refurbishment. So I hope that they will listen to us, but we will also be making sure that we have a meeting with them and make sure that your petition is submitted to them.
6.4 Question from Mr Mark Taylor:
Forced evictions when reporting or asking for repairs, unacceptable standards and rogue landlords continue to pose serious problems for tenants and renters and are negatively affecting many lives. The Coalition Government’s welfare reform has exacerbated the situation. A great majority has experienced problems in their homes of damp, mould, leaking roofs or windows, electrical hazards, animal infestations and gas leaks. In its current state, the private rental market does not function to ensure that homes are let in a decent condition.
Could the Executive Members provide an update in relation to Tower Hamlets and the Council’s Licensing Scheme to ensure such issues are being looked at and addressed in Tower Hamlets on a priority basis?
Response by Councillor Rabina Khan, Cabinet Member for Housing & Development
Thank you Mark for bringing this important question to light. The fact that the law allows for a tenant to be thrown out of their home is simply disgraceful and I would further remark of how shameful it was to see the issue of Section 21 revenge evictions come before parliament in November and be filibustered away by wealthy Tory backbenchers so that a vote could not even be held. That was Tory class war in action and we need to remember that too many of our politicians will side with rogue landlords over ordinary people. However there ought to be a further debate actually between the responsibilities of the management agents as well as the landlords because currently the management agents are not regulated. We can’t change the national situation but we can use whatever powers we have to ensure that we can do something better for the private rented sector in Tower Hamlets. It was agreed in September that consultation would begin on a Landlord Licensee Scheme and trials in pilot areas will be in operation this year. That consultation has already begun.
Summary of supplementary question from Mr Taylor
Rather than have your budget cut by millions, do you think that the Government should provide funding for local councillors to provide a tenancy relation service to help vulnerable tenants and renters have a fair chance against unfair rogue landlords? How can a landlord register function without money to enforce it? Housing Benefit money paid to private sector renters has doubled in the past 10 years. The Government seems to be prepared to pay this money to private landlords. Will you ask the Mayor to write to the minister concerned to highlight the plight of affected people in Tower Hamlets?
Summary of Councillor Rabina Khan’s response to the supplementary question
Thank you Mark indeed I agree with you. And in particular the Mayor and I will write as you requested. But it is important to remember that the current Tory Government doesn’t seem to acknowledge the fact that they have the Bank of England Governor in a home which he gets an allowance for of about £1/4m and yet we have people in the private rented sector suffering so severely and yet there’s no legislation to be able to challenge rogue landlords.
6.5 Question from Mr Azizur Rahaman:
How are the Government cuts affecting the people and Tower Hamlets Council? Could you give a full breakdown of cuts since 2010 by the Government and other funding bodies for the Council?
Response by Councillor Alibor Choudhury, Cabinet Member for Resources
Thank you Mr Rahman. I want to start by reminding the chamber that this Government has failed everybody, especially the people of Tower Hamlets. It’s economic policy has got us absolutely nowhere. There’s been no growth whatsoever, businesses are suffering, employees are losing their jobs and people out there aren’t getting a service. Furthermore their social policies stink.
They talked about Big Society. All we’ve got is broken society. They talked about rolling back the state so people could be independent. Instead they’re rolling back the state so they can dish out contracts to big business at the expense of local business and small business. It’s clear Mr Rahman that welfare reform hasn’t worked. The NHS has been cut, people are out on the streets, people are starving, people are dying because of this Government.
But when it comes to this Council, I can set out for you what the budget cuts have looked like over the last 4 years. So in 2011/12 we recieved a budget cut of 11.3% which is £28.9m. You can imagine what impact that was. In the following year we faced a 7.8% budget reduction which meant £23.7 million was taken out of the kitty. In 13-14 we faced an 11.2% budget reduction which was another £26m away from our budget. In 14-15 we had 18.5% taken from us which equated to around £6.7m that year. Moving forward we have to find savings in the region of £28m. I will leave it to your imagination Mr Rahman what this means for local people and if we in Tower Hamlets will survive the onslaught.
(No supplementary question was put)
6.6 Question from Ms Eileen Short:
On January 31st tenant organisations, trade unions and housing campaigners from all over London will come together on the March for Homes. As the general election approaches, we want to make sure politicians don't forget the millions of people - many of them in Tower Hamlets - who are in housing need. Everyone deserves a decent home. We demand investment in council housing, rent control and security of tenure. Can the Lead Member for Housing please state if the Council will support the March for Homes and welcome it to the borough if it passes through Tower Hamlets?
Response by Councillor Rabina Khan, Cabinet Member for Housing & Development
Thank you Eileen for this question. The housing crisis is an issue in this country and it is at the core of the general election at the moment. It’s a pity some of the parties didn’t speak about this about 3 years ago but then hence we are facing a general election. The importance of decent affordable housing for Londoners is one of the key things of our Fairness Commissioner’s report. Much of what the March for London wants to achieve are recommendations within our Fairness Commission, including improving the standard of the private rented accommodation creating rent models based on the principle that social rent should relate to the income of tenants, not market rents.
Campaigns against Government funding restrictions which prevent the building of affordable housing including the HRA debt cap. There is only 7% of the population which currently opposes capping of rent. I’ve often brought this up in the Council chambers and have been working towards whether or not we could develop a rent that enables people to live in their homes and enjoy their homes.
The statistics exist for a reason. Because the Tories and the New Labour have sat back for a number of years and watched social housing disintegrate while prices spiral out of control. London is already unaffordable for most because of the housing benefit cap, bedroom tax and similar callous policies which are displacing people from their homes and communities.
The Mayor and I fully support the March and we are aware it will be beginning at Shoreditch Church, its route taking it through the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. And I will be therefore marching with you and I will welcome the March for Homes to Tower Hamlets on January 31 and I would like to convey my heartfelt congratulations and support to all those who have worked on it.
Summary of supplementary question from Ms Short
You said earlier that we can’t change the national situation, would you agree with us that we can have a good go at it if we stand together?
Summary of Councillor Rabina Khan’s response to the supplementary question
Thank you Eileen. Yes if we stand together we will most certainly and on that basis if I may bring up the procedural motion under Rule 14.1.3 to debate our motion on the March for Homes.
Question 6.3 was not put due to the absence of the questioner. Questions 6.7 to 6.9 were not put due to lack of time. The Service Head, Democratic Services stated that written responses would be provided to these questions. (Note: The written responses are set out in Appendix ‘A’ to these minutes).
Procedural Motion
Councillor Rabina Khan moved and Councillor Abjol Miah seconded, a procedural motion “that under Procedure Rule 14.1.3 the order of business be varied such that Motion 12.1 ‘Motion regarding March for Homes be taken as the next item of business.” The motion was put to the vote and was defeated.
Supporting documents: