Social injustice

Take Women’s Pioneer, an association ostensibly dedicated to housing women in need. Last August, the association was severely reprimanded by the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal over service charge bills to flat owners, which the LVT reduced from over £13,350 to just £139 each. Moreover, the Tribunal concluded it had no alternative but to find that Women’s Pioneer has “abused its rights or used them oppressively”. The case was brought by Tony and Nastasia Parissis and Behrooz and Isabelle Khamneian, all leaseholders in Victorian conversions owned by Women’s Pioneer. In September 2003 each couple received massive service charge demands. They challenged their bill at the LVT, and their victory was all the more impressive as they represented themselves, while the Housing Association paid for a barrister, a solicitor, and three staff members to attend.

It turned out that Women’s Pioneer should have used the barrister earlier, as the Tribunal found that it had made a fatal error in this case. It was also a basic error. The law requires at least two estimates for major works, but the association “did not obtain any estimates for the works”. Instead it sent letters saying that the works would be carried out “as part of a larger contract” and without competitive tendering.

By doing this, they “manifestly failed to comply, in letter or spirit, with the consultation and estimates requirements of Section 20 of the 1985 Act”, the LVT said. In cases like this, as we know, the costs allowed to charge to the leaseholders are limited to a total of £1,000 for the entire block, which worked out at only £139.80 each for the complainants. The Tribunal also found that the costs “were incurred not reasonably but irresponsibly in relation to other people’s money”. This is all too typical of the way some housing associations carry on.

The leaseholders asked for the costs of the hearing to be refunded to them because Women’s Pioneer “has not been transparent and has frustrated any attempts by us to discuss (and disclose) important aspects of the 2002’¨Cyclical Maintenance Works and refused to meet with us.” The Tribunal agreed, and added that it had no alternative but to find that’¨Women’s Pioneer has not only broken the basic rules of major works contracts, but also “abused its rights or used them oppressively”. They were especially concerned that, having agreed to appoint a joint expert, they then refused to accept his findings.

The expert testified that he could not understand why the roof was replaced at considerable cost less than 15 years after a previous complete’¨re-roofing that should have been good for 50 years. The Tribunal agreed.

You would have expected that Women’s Pioneer would have learned something from this LVT decision, which cost it a great deal, and not just in cash terms. But you would be wrong.  Gohar Shahriari, another Women’s Pioneer leaseholder, has been in dispute with the Housing Association since March 2003 over water leaked into and from her flat. During this dispute she made formal complaints to Women’s Pioneer that they failed to respond to. They also failed to respond to the Ombudsman’s “repeated requests” for her complaints to be addressed.

The Housing Ombudsman, who adjudicates complaints by leaseholders as well as tenants, has now determined that this failure amounted to maladministration by Women’s Pioneer. Last month the association was ordered to pay Ms Shariari £300 in compensation by 19 April. As of 25 April they failed to do that too...