Noel Park Frequently Asked Questions

Noel Park - Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) – updated August 2021

This FAQ is designed to provide residents with information about Homes for Haringey’s (HfH) Major Works programme for the Noel Park area. It includes answers to questions submitted by leaseholders in the area as part of the Section 20 consultation processes conducted by HfH in 2020 and 2021.

Key question areas

Need for repairs and replacement of the pods – page 2 Surveys – page 7 Design and replacement options – page 9 Procurement process – page 15 Consultation arrangements – page 16 Decision-making process – page 18 Contract Management – page 19 Leaseholder charges and payment arrangements – page 20 History of the pods – page 27 Other issues – page 30

Homes for Haringey Ltd is a company wholly owned by the London Borough of Haringey Registered in England 5749092. Registered office: 48 Station Road, Wood Green, London N22 7TY

Need for repairs and replacement of pods 1. Why do the bathroom pod extensions need to be replaced? The prefabricated pods were installed nearly 50 years ago (circa 1972) and have come to the end of their useful life. This proposed works will improve the property and reduce the maintenance costs.

2. Could you please confirm if the proposed works are improvement works or repairs? And could you please provide further information as to how you make this classification? These works are repairs, that will be based on detailed and comprehensive surveys, made available to each leaseholder.

3. What length of time has been used as the basis of Homes for Haringey’s own internal estimates? Estimates are based on replacing components that are expected to need replacement within 5 years.

4. Other than the five-year timescale, how does Homes for Haringey determine what is and is not ‘necessary’? Detailed surveys of the condition of the homes identify any components in disrepair and which need to be replaced.

5. My pod feels cold; will the new pods be warmer? The new modular extensions will have insulated floors, walls and ceilings, which comply with all current building regulations. The rear door and windows are double-glazed, which will improve the thermal efficiency of each home. This means that they should be warmer and easier to heat, as well as improve the energy efficiency of the building.

6. I have a metal staircase attached to the rear of my pod extension. Are you proposing to replace this when you renew the pod? Detailed surveys will determine the condition of each staircase. It will be refurbished if it is in good condition and replaced if not. This will be considered and decided when full pre-works assessments have been completed.

7. Why is it necessary to replace my front door and windows? Why is the replacement front door so expensive? Prior to any works being undertaken, a detailed survey is carried out to determine the scope of works. Only works that are necessary will be carried out. If work is not required on a specific door or window, because it complies with the required standards and safety regulations, it will not be carried out. It is important that any replacement of key parts of the building, such as doors and windows, meet the requirements of fire safety regulations. HfH works with contractors to source the best value product that meets these requirements.

8. I would like to replace my own windows and front door. Can I do this? Following a consultation with leaseholders about proposed changes to the Leasehold Alterations policy, Haringey Council's Cabinet agreed a new policy in December 2020 covering the replacement of windows and doors by leaseholders in buildings where the Council is the freeholder. This policy does mean that leaseholders are now no longer allowed to replace the windows and doors of their properties themselves. This change is designed to provide clear guidance on the different categories of work within and outside their home, for which the Council’s consent will be required. The implementation of the policy will ensure that all external installations adhere to the current regulatory standards and do not compromise fire safety. This in turn will make sure that leaseholders continue to be safe in their home. The Alterations policy can be found on the HfH website.

9. While it is certainly desirable to return Noel Park properties to an ideal Conservation Area appearance, the financial reality for both Homes for Haringey and residents is that what is desirable may not be affordable. Are there any works being proposed that are higher in cost because of Conservation Area regulations but which are not actually considered necessary? All the proposed works are considered essential repairs and are necessary.

10. A 2015 report prepared by Savills for Haringey Council and Homes for Haringey estimated total charges for all works (pods and other major works) at ‘up to £43,000 (excluding prelims, fees and contingency)’. It stated then that Homes for Haringey would ‘need to consider on a case by case basis the needs for works to leaseholder properties’.

With the estimates so much higher now, does Homes for Haringey fully commit to following this recommendation? HfH will issue estimates and final service charge bills on behalf of Haringey Council in line with legal requirements. The final bills will be based on the works undertaken that can be lawfully charged for. All works carried out will be essential and necessary.

11. Were the costings from the 2014–15 Option Appraisal report used in the Asset Management Five-Year Investment Plan agreed in early 2018? Yes, these costings were used alongside other surveys and estimates.

12. The five-year plan agreed in 2018 set a £12 million budget for the Noel Park pod works. We have since been told that the works are now set to total £21 million. Why has this figure increased so dramatically? HfH believes it is important that all properties are brought up to the Decent Homes standard and the scope of the works has been designed to achieve that aim. Following the 5-year plan, a Ridge report from 2018 estimated the works at £16m. This figure increased further because: • An additional 13 properties were added to the scope of the works - £1.6m

• The size of the modular extensions was increased - £1m

• 47 additional larger pods for kitchen - £1m

• 15 additional bathroom pods - £670k

• Safer method of removal for the asbestos - £800k

13. When you replace the pods or carry out major works, do you propose to extend the kitchen area, as my kitchen is very small? Many of the flats on Gladstone Avenue have kitchens that fail to meet Decency standards. Why have Homes for Haringey agreed on a solution that will do nothing to bring kitchens up to a Decent standard? HfH understands that some properties, particularly in Farrant Avenue, Moselle Avenue and Morley Avenue have very small kitchen areas. HfH have already explored the scope of increasing the kitchen sizes with Ridge and Partners LLP and these works are now part of Phase One of the works for the final phase of the programme.

HfH are not proposing to extend any leaseholder’s kitchens on Gladstone Avenue. The designs proposed are considered the best possible solution given the constraints of the existing building size and layout.

14. The pod bathrooms are generally considered to be too small. Why have Homes for Haringey agreed on a solution that will not address this issue? The size of the modular extensions has been increased. The designs proposed are considered the best possible solution given the constraints of the footprint allowed for the new modular extensions.

15. What are the requirements for replacing windows on the Noel Park Estate? The Noel Park Estate is in a Conservation Area. Planning regulations mean that the windows to the front of the properties must be replaced with timber windows on a like-for-like basis. HfH are able to replace the windows to the rear of the property with uPVC windows under Conservation Area rules.

16. My property is in need of major works to renew windows, rewiring etc. When will this be carried out? All necessary outstanding Major Works will be carried out as part of this project and following detailed surveys of each property.

17. Can I not have a pod? Is the pod classified as internal or external works? The pod is an integral part of the building. As the freeholder owner of the whole building, the Council is not offering an option to not have the pod replaced, as we have the responsibility for ensuring the long-term quality of all our buildings.

18. Will all the work on my property be done at the same time? What is the completion date of the works on my property? The consultants for the Noel Park Major Works programme, Ridge and Partners LPP will advise on the timescale for works to each home and whether all works can all be undertaken at the same time.

19. What does ‘other works, including protection of the internal property’ involve? I am not liable for the internal works carried out in the flat above. Please give me a breakdown of what this includes. The leaseholder is only responsible for internal works within their own flat, not any internal works to council tenants' flats. The internal works in each leasehold flat relate to the process of removing and replacing the pod with a new extension. HfH will give each leaseholder a breakdown of the works involved.

20. If there have been any changes to building regulations since the 2012 pilot pod that relate to the pods, what are these changes and what effect has this had on the cost? Please give exact figures or, if these are unavailable, estimates supported by corresponding evidence. Building Regulations have been updated since 2012, however HfH did not commission an analysis of the works cost details that would illustrate the specific changes. However, there has been some misleading information placed into the public domain about the 2012 pilot. The pilot project took place at four homes on Gladstone Avenue. This was at 183 and 183A and 221 and 221A Gladstone Avenue. This was reported in a Council Cabinet paper presented on the 30 July 2013 as having cost £25k per home. This was misleading information. The £25k per home figure refers just to the pod replacement works. However, on investigation, this was the average figure for the cost across four properties, one of which didn’t have a pod. The cost for each new pod was £36,574. The total cost of works across the four properties, one of which didn’t have a pod, was £274,544, which is £68,636 per property.

21. Please provide a detailed environmental impact study of the works, including an assessment of the impact of replacing the pod with another temporary structure as opposed to a brick structure? Sustainability is an important priority for Haringey Council and HfH. The existing pod materials are to be reused where possible. Non-reusable materials, such as plasterboards, old timbers etc will be separated into wastes streams and recycled where possible and landfilled where unable to recycle. Specialist hazardous materials, such as asbestos, will be treated and processed by licenced carriers.

The timber used for the new module is sourced from FSC approved suppliers. For every kilogram of timber, the timber sequesters 1.6kg of carbon from the atmosphere, thus providing a carbon negative figure of 0.6kg carbon per kilo used. This helps negate some of the carbon impact from materials used within the construction. Plasterboard provided by British Gypsum is included in their take back scheme, where they take back old plasterboard and offcuts from the fabrication process. Our wastage in the factory is less than 2%, which when compared to traditional construction which has a figure of around 18-20% wastage to landfill, it makes offsite construction a very favourable method of construction.

22. My consultation letter is asking me to contribute to roof repairs despite my roof being in good condition. I don’t think the works are necessary, how can I dispute this? HfH is happy to discuss with individual leaseholders any issues surrounding the works being conducted as part of the Noel Park Major Works programme. The Council is proposing to fund an independent surveyor to check the cost and necessity of works on behalf of leaseholders. If a leaseholder wants to challenge whether any elements of the works are necessary, then they can do so through: • The First Tier Tribunal, either during the period of works or after the final service charge bills have been issued. Leaseholders can seek independent legal advice before commencing such a legal action through the Tribunal process. For more information, please visit the leasehold disputes page on gov.uk. • Leaseholders can also seek advice from the Government-funded leasehold advisory service (LEASE).

Surveys 23. When were the sample surveys carried out? How many leaseholder homes were included in the sample survey? What was the condition of the homes in the sample survey? How were these homes used in the sample survey selected? In order to identify the scope of works, surveys were carried out between November 2019 to June 2020. These surveys included external surveys, internal surveys, electrical, asbestos and “pod” surveys. There were 67 external surveys of leasehold flats. None of the surveys inside roof and loft spaces were leasehold properties. The condition of the properties varied. Further detailed surveys were conducted in early 2021, before the Phase 2 works were presented to the Council’s Cabinet for approval.

24. Were the ‘additional works’ including roofs, doors, windows, pointing, dropping stones, eaves, mortar repairs, stonework, apron, step flashing, eaves timber, rainwater goods, fencing, brickwork repairs to the external and chimney stacks and chimney pots surveyed? At street level, an external visual inspection survey was conducted to all properties which form part of the scheme. The scope of works was mainly based on visual inspections. Ridge and Partners LLP conducted further detailed surveys during January and February 2021. Only works that are necessary will be carried out.

25. If the contract has been signed with the contractor ENGIE before surveys have been carried out and not all the works are required to our property how will this impact the overall contract? The contract allows the amount of work to be varied. If less work is required, the costs could decrease; if more work is required, the costs could increase.

26. If ENGIE estimate (for example) all roofs need replacing then what is the incentive to not replace the roof once the contract has been signed (and presumably the estimate and costs agreed prior to surveys)? Ridge and Partners LLP, who are independent consultants under contract with the Council, surveyed the properties in early 2021 to examine in more detail whether the works were necessary in each case. Leaseholders were issued with a copy of these surveys and any issues can be discussed directly with HfH. The findings of the surveys were scrutinised by the HfH project team. The contract with ENGIE allows for the works to be varied according to the results of the surveys.

27. If leaseholders seek their own independent survey can this information be used to dispute the survey carried out on Homes for Haringey’s behalf? Could you please confirm that in the event of my sourcing a private surveyor, you will take the survey into account? How will you evidence this? Any survey produced from a recognised body or surveyor by an individual leaseholder can be considered by HfH and reviewed alongside the detailed survey of the property that will be commissioned by HfH’s appointed contractor before any work commences on the site. A written response to any conclusions reached will be provided to the leaseholder. Residents would be required to meet the costs of an additional survey themselves.

28. If we believe that the proposed works are not necessary and our own survey supports this, what is the timeline within which HfH will adjust the estimates to reflect this and what date can we expect to receive this update? Whilst HfH is ready to consider a leaseholder’s own survey findings, HfH will need to consider these alongside the survey undertaken by Ridge and Partners LPP in early 2021 to determine the full scope of works needed. Estimates were adjusted and revised Section 20 Notices issued in May 2021, prior to the Phase 2 contract award being presented to Cabinet for approval in July 2021.

Design and replacement options

29. Can I have a brick-built bathroom extension? Do you have an exact fee quoted for a brick construction and the process you have followed to decide for modular pods against a brick-built structure? This project has been under review for a number of years and various options have been considered to ensure not only a suitable design for the pod replacement, but also to achieve the most economical way to deliver this project. The modular approach avoids the need to decant residents from their homes for extended periods of time, reduces the overall time required to carry out a project of this nature and reduces the overall cost of this project. Building in brick has been estimated to cost more compared to modular construction – see the table below. Please note that the estimated cost to build in brick shown does not yet include decant costs for all residents, removal and storage costs and any additional costs for increases in the time to deliver the project. Based on the cost comparison, HfH recommended the new modular extension to replace each pod.

30. The length of time for temporary rehousing quoted in previous correspondence has been variously stated as six–eight weeks, three months and up to six months. Why does this figure keep changing? The period of rehousing required will depend on the length of works needed, which may vary between properties depending on the extent of works required.

31. A permanent brick-built extension would add greater value to a property than a temporary prefabricated structure. One of the primary factors for not pursuing a brick-built option is the cost to Homes for Haringey for temporary rehousing. Therefore, Homes for Haringey are prioritising their costs over leaseholders’ value for money. We are effectively subsidising tenants and Homes for Haringey. How can this be justified? The cost estimate comparison shown in the table for question 29 demonstrates that, even without the cost of temporary rehousing, the modular extension is better value for money than a brick-built extension. The choice of a traditional brick-built construction would also result in further increases in cost because of the need to decant council tenants, which is estimated at £11k per property. Resident leaseholders would potentially face higher costs as well as they might decide to

10 vacate their property during the works which may affect water supplies to their bathrooms and other parts of the building. Non-resident leaseholders would also be likely to face a loss of rental income as they would, in all likelihood, be required to vacate rented properties during the period of the works. Decanting residents, while necessary in some cases, does also cause disruption to the lives of the residents, especially those with school age children. The modular extension is a permanent structure with a Built Offsite Property Assurance Scheme (BOPAS) accreditation which provides assurance of a minimum 60 year lifespan. We expect the lifespan and quality of the modular extension to compare favourably to a traditionally built product.

32. Could the pod replacement and costs be treated separately from the other work since it has more complex issues? HfH is proposing a comprehensive contract covering a range of works that are required, in line with the Council's preference for a holistic approach to carrying out major works to our homes. Only necessary works will be completed.

33. What maintenance will the pods need in the future? The maintenance programme for the new modular extensions is expected to be similar to that of traditionally built extensions, including a standard maintenance programme for roofs, guttering, windows and doors, which would be carried out on all structures. Modular construction is widely used in the modern construction industry due to the construction method providing better quality than would have otherwise been achieved through traditional construction.

34. My hot water cylinder/gas boiler is in the pod extension, would this be relocated? HfH will aim to relocate the existing heating facilities to a suitable area within the home. This will be considered on a property-by-property basis.

35. Where in the lease does it permit you to enter our property and demolish internal walls, ceilings, flooring and fixtures in the case of the pod bathroom? The old pod will be removed, and a new modular extension will be installed. We do not consider this a demolition. Please see answer 21 for information on how the component parts of the pod will be disposed of, including reusing and recycling materials where possible. The works are necessary to keep the building in a good state of repair.

36. If you install a new bathroom in the new pod, will I be able to keep my sanitary and personal fittings? Will I be able to use my own wall and floor tiles? HfH will offer a range of designs and colour choices for the proposed bathroom pod renewals. If a leaseholder does not want the bathroom suite provided by HfH, we are open to a conversation with the leaseholder about this.

37. As the interior of the bathroom belongs to the leaseholder, it is within our right to appoint a contractor to carry out works on the interior bathroom fittings or to carry out our own works on the interior bathroom fittings. Could you please confirm? Please provide the breakdown costs of the bathroom pod which are related to the interior of the bathroom. Leaseholders will be entitled to carry out alterations once the new modular extension is installed. HfH proposes to install a new bathroom suite at no extra cost to the leaseholder, so the interior cost is not part of the estimate provided to leaseholders. If a leaseholder does not want the bathroom suite provided by HfH, we are open to a conversation with the leaseholder about this.

38. Would I be able to obtain replacement parts for the bathroom fittings in the future? HfH aim to ensure that any replacement parts are available for the future.

39. I have mobility problems; would the bathroom be adapted to suit my current/future needs? HfH will discuss the bathroom layout and design around each individual’s needs. If someone needs adaptations, HfH will arrange for an Occupational Therapist to visit and assess their needs in relation to the works.

40. The new layout for the bathroom pod seems to be small, will it be extended? Ridge and Partners LPP have submitted planning applications to the Council’s Planning and Conservation Team to seek consent for new foundations resulting in a new modular extension that is larger than the existing pods.

41. The layout of the building is weird, half of the garden is blocked with the pod and the space in the sides is not utilised, also there is no privacy the garden due to the layout of the pod, how is this considered an improvement in this proposal? The new modular extension is designed to provide adequate internal space and to achieve building performance standards (e.g. insulation, weather-tight) and to ensure the use of the remaining garden area is not considered to be detrimental.

42. The resident below me has a single storey pod. Would it be possible to extend the pod up to the first floor? HfH will need to explore this in further detail and consult with the Council’s planning and conservation teams. Any individual leaseholder is welcome to raise this matter directly with HfH.

43. Will the work have a guarantee? Will this be transferable to leaseholders? Please confirm the guarantee on the pod and evidence how this has been tested. The pod is covered by the Build Offsite Property Assurance Scheme (BOPAS) which gives assurance to lenders for a minimum period of 60 years. The assurance is in the name of the property, so in the event of a Right to Buy purchase, the details can be passed to the acting solicitors for transfer to the new owner. This is not a guarantee, warranty or insurance scheme that pays for any remedial costs arising during that timescale, and these type of guarantees are typically only offered for new build homes, not extensions, however they are built.

This said, Haringey Council is willing to guarantee the structure of the modular extension for the first 10 years – this is the same length of time that you would get on a building warranty on a new-build home.

44. What is the environmental cost of replacing the pod with another modular pod that has a short estimated lifetime (compared to having no pod)? The new modular extensions have an estimated minimum 60 year lifespan, confirmed independently through the Build Offsite Property Assurance Scheme (BOPAS), which is accepted by major mortgage lenders. This provides the same or a better level of lifespan assurance to what would be available for a brick-built extension, which would not usually be covered by an insurance scheme such as the National House Building Council (NHBC) warranty scheme.

45. Will the pods have any cladding attached to them? ENGIE’s brochure ‘Noel Park Pod Replacement and Major Works’ states that the proposed pod will use Trespa cladding. But I’ve read there may be safety concerns about this cladding?

Fire safety is an important priority for HfH. The new modular extension will be constructed in a factory by ModularWise, an experienced modular construction firm sub-contracted by ENGIE. The structure of the module is made from 140mm timber stud frame, fully filled with rockwool insulation to achieve the required U-value, with an intumescent strip to suit the 26 mm cavity, mechanically fixed at 250mm centres according to the manufacturer’s recommendation; the extension is externally clad with 9mm FS-Xtra Rockpanel. The insulation and cladding layer is rated A2 under the Euroclass fire rating system. A1 is “non- combustible”, A2 is “limited combustibility” and products rated B to F are all “combustible” to an increasing extent. A2 is highly fire-resistant and is considered appropriate for these properties in relation to fire safety and a good standard of thermal insulation.

46. If the leaseholder believes that the suggested work can be completed at a competitive price to what has been estimated by HfH can the leaseholder have these works carried out? Can the leaseholder obtain independent quotes for the work if the overall work is of the same or better standard? The works are the responsibility of the Council and HfH. Some Section 20 consultations enable the leaseholder to provide evidence of an alternative contractor to HfH which would be considered before the Council makes a decision to award the contract. However, in this case we have chosen to procure through a Qualifying Long Term Agreement, via the London Construction Programme framework, which we believe offers the best value in this case. This framework satisfies the public procurement rules and so no further competitive process is needed.

47. Is the design element of these works a separate contract to the main part of the works for which ENGIE is the preferred bidder? No, the design of works is part of the ENGIE contract. However, the contract is a two stage contract in which the main works are awarded subsequently to the design stage of the contract.

Procurement process

48. Can leaseholders source their own quotes for the work and choose to proceed with that provider instead? The works are being carried out under a type of contract called a Qualifying Long-Term Agreement. When works are carried out under these types of contracts, leaseholders do not have the right to nominate contractors for the works.

49. You have relied on the fact that you have entered into a Qualifying Long Term Agreement to avoid engaging in the full section 20 consultation procedure. Please explain the details of the relevant QLTA and the nexus with these specific works to our property? The Council has carried out full consultation with leaseholders as required under Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (as amended) and Schedule 2 of the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements)(England) Regulations 2003). The consultation regarding the Landlord’s proposal to enter into the QLTA was issued on the 11 August 2015 and set out the type of works to be undertaken under the framework which includes the scope of works to be undertaken to your property.

50. Please explain how we could have anticipated this scope of works and the relevant costs involved from the original notification that you had entered into a QLTA? Leaseholders should be advised at the point of purchase by their solicitors about their obligations under the lease, including the requirement to contribute to future building maintenance and remedial work. Prospective homeowners are encouraged to commission a property survey prior to acquisition so that the condition of the property is understood and any future major works are anticipated.

51. The section 20 notice dated 21 September 2020 states that ‘the Council has checked the proposed tender to ensure that it is consistent with the criteria governing value for money, the necessary technical specifications and also meets local resident requirements.’ What public records are available of these checks? In line with legal advice, the tender evaluation process is not published in detail, given the commercially confidential information involved. When reported to the Council’s Cabinet for approval, a summary is published, and commercially confidential details are reported in an appendix which is exempt from publication.

52. How has it been determined that these works meet ‘local resident requirements’? Resident consultation has taken place and is ongoing. For more details, please see answer to question 54.

53. Is affordability by leaseholders not considered to be a ‘local resident requirement’ and if not, why not? Affordability is an important issue, which is why Haringey Council and HfH are committed to offering a variety of fair and reasonable payment options for residents for their Major Works bills. For more information, please see the answer to question 83.

Consultation arrangements

54. On 19 December 2019 you wrote to us following a ‘drop-in’ session. You mentioned a resident consultation group you would engage with throughout the project. Please detail your engagement with the leaseholder resident group and the decisions or input they have made and how it has impacted your decision making. Have the estimates for the Noel Park works produced by ENGIE been discussed with any residents’ panel on which leaseholders sit? Residents including leaseholders were invited to a consultation meeting in the late autumn of 2019 which was intended to take place in early 2020. Volunteers were requested for a group with the intention to meet regularly throughout the delivery period. However, these meetings did not take place owing to the COVID-19 restrictions. We intend to recommence them when the delivery process proceeds. Further consultation meetings online were held in August 2020. Additional direct communication has been conducted by HfH and senior Haringey Council staff, including a door knocking exercise in October 2020. Further consultation online and via email has continued during 2021, including revised Section 20 Notices issued in May 2021.

55. If you engaged with some leaseholders but not others how did you decide which leaseholders to engage with? HfH do accept that there have been failures in aspects of its communications with leaseholders and does apologise for these past failures. However, it is not true that HfH only engaged with “some leaseholders”. The consultation process has included: • Engaging with all leaseholders at each stage of the process.

• Undertaking a legally required Section 20 consultation process with all leaseholders. • Committing to ongoing engagement with all leaseholders.

56. When did the Leasehold Panel last meet? How have the seven key objectives of the Leasehold Panel (as listed in Appendix 1 of the Homes for Haringey document ‘Terms of reference for Resident Panels’) been met with regards to these works? The Leasehold Panel open for all Haringey leaseholders last met on 26 April 2017. That Panel did not discuss specific major works schemes on local estates.

57. Even before ENGIE delivered their estimates for the work, Homes for Haringey have long been aware that the likely costs to leaseholders for all works being proposed would be far in excess of the £25,000 for the pod that had been stated in previous estimates. Why at no point before summer 2020 did Homes for Haringey not provide any warning to leaseholders that the costs were liable to be many tens of thousands of pounds higher than the only specific estimate (namely £25,000) given previously? HfH followed a clear procurement process and issued estimates once a prospective contractor was in place and detailed cost estimates were ready. HfH’s view is that it would have been unhelpful and potentially confusing to speculate about possible costs, before detailed estimates from our proposed contractor were ready.

58. There have been instances which suggest that reports compiled by Homes for Haringey for Haringey Council, residents and other members of the public do not always provide a fair, transparent and unbiased assessment of a given situation. Examples include: a) letter that was clearly signed by several residents from multiple households only being counted as a single response; b) emails that have been logged as observations when the sender did not wish it to be a formal observation, or even had explicitly stated it was not an observation; c) the summary of responses to the proposal to end the policy of allowing leaseholders to replace their own windows, in which nearly 150 people ‘wrote in’ with their views, yet 50 of those who wrote in with their views ‘didn’t express a view on the proposal’. What faith can we have that the observations to a Section 20 notice and your responses are fairly and accurately summarised when you report to Haringey Council? Is there any kind of independent scrutiny of Homes for Haringey’s reports resulting from consultations with residents? HfH is committed to ensuring that all its services conform to its legal requirements and best practice guidelines when it comes to its consultations.

HfH's performance is subject to full scrutiny, including internal and external audits. Haringey Council’s Scrutiny Committee did examine HfH’s consultation process in regard to the Noel Park Major Works Programme (and other aspects of the current programme) in December 2020. If a resident is not satisfied with the operation of a consultation, they can make a formal complaint to HfH through its complaint process. If they are not satisfied with the how this complaint is handled, the issue can be escalated to the Housing Ombudsman.

59. Have HfH considered the impact of issuing the section 20 Notice at this time on leaseholder’s mental health during a pandemic, recessions, unemployment etc.? HfH do appreciate that the COVID-19 pandemic has had a devastating impact on many residents throughout Haringey. HfH have as a result carefully considered the impact the Major Works programme will have on the leaseholder residents of Noel Park. Prior to sending out the Section 20 estimates on 21 September 2020, HfH wrote to all the leaseholders on 14 August 2020 requesting they make contact. The purpose of the August correspondence was to give leaseholders an opportunity to discuss their individual circumstances, to see whether further support or assistance could be provided by HfH. Additional direct communication has been conducted by HfH and senior Haringey Council staff, including a door knocking exercise in October 2020. HfH remains committed to discussing any issues directly with leaseholders, including relating to any financial impact of the Section 20 notice. HfH have confirmed that no payments will be expected before the completion of the programme, which is estimated to be in 2022.

Decision-making process

60. What is the relationship between Haringey Council and Homes for Haringey, especially in terms of the function of the Cabinet? HfH is an Arms Length Management Organisation (ALMO), set up in April 2006 to manage Haringey’s council housing. Haringey Council owns the homes managed by HfH and takes overall responsibility for housing policy and strategy, which are approved and set by Haringey Council’s Cabinet. More information can be found on the Council’s website page explaining the purpose of the Cabinet.

61. Were the Council and Cabinet members aware of the Section 20 Notice being issued and the cost of estimates prior to issuing the Notice to leaseholders? The issuing of Section 20 notices is a standard process carried out by HfH which does not involve formal reporting and sign-off by the Council's Cabinet, elected Members or Chief Officers.

62. The 13 October 2020 Cabinet meeting fell within the 30-day section 20 consultation period for leaseholders. Was it HfH’s intention to ask the Cabinet to approve the programme without Cabinet members having the benefit of leaseholders’ observations and feedback? It was not HfH's intention to present a report to Cabinet without completion of the leasehold statutory consultation period. The issue date of the Section 20 notices required the proposed Cabinet decision date to be postponed to accommodate the leaseholder consultation.

63. Leaseholders were advised at the beginning of October 2020 by Sean McLaughlin that a report would instead be taken to Haringey Cabinet on 10 November. This fell before the end of the 21 day period for you to respond to leaseholder observations. Was it your intention to respond to us prior to the Cabinet report being published on 4 November? Do you feel that this demonstrates sound and transparent governance and open, equitable consultation? Reports seeking the award of contract for projects, where leaseholders are required to pay a contribution towards the cost of the works, can be submitted to Cabinet upon expiry of the statutory leasehold consultation period. In the case of the Noel Park Major Works project, this could have taken place any time after 24 October 2020, as long as all observations raised by leaseholders had been taken into account in the decision. We also commit to ensuring that all leasehold observations receive a response before the submission of a report to Cabinet.

Contract management

64. Will the works be completed by ENGIE in their entirety or will they be subcontracted? ENGIE will use subcontractors to complete sections of this project, as is standard practice in the construction industry. All work will be assessed by HfH through a dedicated project manager, an onsite Clerk of Works to oversee quality and workmanship, and a consultant from Ridge and Partners LLP (who has been appointed to manage the contract on a day-today basis) to ensure work is carried out to the specifications and standards laid out in the contract.

65. What incentive is there for ENGIE to ensure the works are to a high standard if they are in a long term contract with HfH to carry out maintenance work? All major works contracts require contractors to complete the works in accordance with specifications and standards laid out in the contracts. These include relevant best practice regulations and recognised industry standards. The payment mechanism within the contract is dependent on the work being formally signed off as meeting these high specifications and standards. If the work fails this test, the contractor is not paid for the work.

66. How can I get more information on the works taking place? HfH’s proposed contractor ENGIE has sent affected residents’ newsletters about the proposed works and will continue to do so throughout the project. Residents can also contact HfH’s Major Works team with queries about the project at [email protected]

Leaseholder charges and payment arrangements

67. How much will the new modular extensions cost? Estimated costs for each property were issued in Section 20 notices in September 2020 based primarily on external surveys. Ridge and Partners carried out more detailed internal surveys in early 2021 to finalise the works needed for each property. Revised Section 20 notices were issued in May 2021. The apportioned costs and potential payments plan for the replacements and major works can be discussed with individual leaseholders, please contact leasehold services to book an appointment.

68. Will leaseholders have to pay a proportion of the costs of the works? Under the terms of the lease, leaseholders are liable for a proportion of the cost of carrying out repairs and maintenance to the building. The amount charged depends on when the lease was assigned. It is based either on the rateable value or on the number of bedrooms in the flat.

For further information on what proportion of building costs the lease says must be paid, please contact the Leasehold Services Team at [email protected] or on 020 8489 5611 (available Monday to Friday 8.45am-5pm).

69. Why are different leaseholders receiving different estimates for the work being carried out? The estimated costs of the works are based on the terms of individual leases and on the outcome of an individual property survey, that will be made available to each leaseholder. The scope of works is therefore assessed on a property by property basis.

70. Why are costs for internal works included in my estimate? A cost breakdown and scope of work has been provided for leaseholders in the Section 20 notice. Leaseholders don't pay costs towards any internal work in a council tenant’s property. The cost for internal works in the estimates sent to leaseholders relates to work covering the internal aspects of the leasehold property when the bathroom extension works are carried out. The breakdown is broken up into separate components: • External Repair and Redecoration works • Windows and Front External Door (FED) • Internal Works, which are designed to protect the property during the bathroom extension removal and replacement works. • Modular Extension Replacement

71. I have received a letter quoting a large amount for the works. When do I need to pay this by? HfH sent out ‘Section 20’ consultation letters in September 2020 and May 2021. These notices are a legal requirement for any works to leasehold property that will cost over £250. HfH invited leaseholders to comment and have now responded to the valid s20 observations received.

72. But the figures quoted are large, and I won’t be able to pay that in one go? HfH know that, due to the nature of the work, the bills for this work can be high. HfH offer a range of payment arrangements to help leaseholders pay for their share of the work and an enhanced policy was agreed by Haringey Council’s Cabinet in July 2021. Contact our Leasehold Services Team at [email protected] on 020 8489 5611 (available Monday to Friday 8.45am-5pm) to discuss individual circumstances.

73. Are the estimated cost of works the maximum costs of work? The estimates issued in May 2021 are the current best estimate of the maximum costs of the work currently planned. HfH is committed to ensuring these are as cost effective as possible, and it is HfH’s hope that the overall costs will reduce further. Please also not the offer made to leaseholders following the Cabinet meeting in July 2021, detailed below in question 113.

74. What is the freeholder contribution to the works? The freeholder pays 100% of the cost of the works to the contractor. Leaseholders are then charged a proportion of the cost of works to the building as set out in their lease. 75. If I do not have a pod but the flat on the ground floor does, will I have to contribute towards the cost of their extension? Under the terms of your lease, leaseholders are liable for a proportion of the costs of carrying out repairs and maintenance to the exterior or structure of the building, whether or not that work is carried out to the exterior or structure of the individual flat itself. This would normally include any works carried out to the pods. However, following the Cabinet meeting in July 2021, the Council has made an offer to the affected leaseholders, detailed below in question 113.

76. Please explain in detail why the Council failed to secure government or other funds for the project? Will there be opportunities to obtain government or other funding for this project in the future? There are currently no Government grant funding programmes available that would cover the works proposed to replace the Noel Park pod extensions. The Council will consider applying for any future Government funding if grant becomes available during the delivery period of this contract and the works are eligible.

77. £25 million of Central Government funding and £45 millions of Haringey Council funds were allocated to the Decent Homes Programme. Florrie’s Law would have applied to the Decent Homes Programme meaning that leaseholder’s contribution would have been capped at £15,000. How much was allocated to the Noel Park estate by the Council and HfH for the Decent Homes Programme? There are very specific circumstances for the application of Florrie's Law. These circumstances do not apply to Noel Park at present as no government grants are available for the proposed works. The previous Government grant funding for Decent Homes works was administered in

London by the Greater London Authority (GLA). The GLA did not allocate funds for specific named properties or estates, it was for the Council and HfH to apply the grant funding to the most appropriate properties at the time to bring as many homes as possible up to Decent Homes Standard. A report to Haringey's Leader for approval in July 2013 makes it clear that the Council decided to exclude the Noel Park pod properties from the Decent Homes grant-funded programme at that stage, due to the complexity and estimated costs of works (particularly the replacement of the pod extensions). Most Decent Homes works on the Noel Park Estate were funded by the Council's Housing Revenue Account without the benefit of Government grants. £6.1m of Government grant was allocated for Noel Park Decent Homes works to homes without pods.

78. Was the bathroom pod work included in the Decent Homes Programme? Given the supposed urgency of the works in Noel Park, why were these works not a greater priority during the period when funding was available? The pod works did not meet the funding criteria for Decent Homes grant and were excluded from the previous Decent Homes programme in 2013, for the reasons explained in question 77.

79. In the event that HfH failed to obtain any home energy grants from the Government, can leaseholders apply and use grants available to substitute some of the proposed works in the Notice? Please confirm if HfH has taken into account any home energy grants from the Government, or indeed any grants available for leaseholders for these proposed works? Unfortunately, the Government grants currently available for energy efficiency works cannot be used for the pod replacement works contract proposed for Noel Park.

80. How about the conservation area and protected houses, do I get any support from government or grant since we are living on these houses with restriction on keeping the originality? Grants for historic buildings are available from Historic England, however, these are highly unlikely to be available to individual homeowners on Noel Park.

81. Can any of the proposed work be covered by the building insurance? If yes, please detail the works that would be covered; otherwise please provide the reasons why the works are not covered. The works required to the property are not covered under our current building insurance.

82. Have HfH taken into account the impact on leaseholder’s mental health of the estimated costs of these works? If so, please confirm how and relevant documentation. HfH have carefully considered the impact the work will have on the leaseholder residents of Noel Park. If you would like to talk through support options please contact leasehold services at [email protected] on 020 8489 5611 (available Monday to Friday 8.45am-5pm) HfH will not send out any requests for payment from leaseholders until the work has been completed. This is estimated to be late 2022 at the earliest and will enable a suitable payment plan to be agreed with each leaseholder, without delaying the work.

83. Can you tell me the payment options? The enhanced payment arrangements policy was approved by the Cabinet in July 2021. For more details and to arrange an appointment to discuss your options, please contact [email protected] or call 020 8489 5611 (available Monday to Friday 8.45am-5pm).

84. Which bank will be able to lend such a high amount for the job listed on your letter? Since we are not the direct users of the funds, the lenders will not be willing to compromise on realising the funds. Does HfH have an action plan to help their leaseholders to be able to afford this cost or reduce to an affordable level to be able to carry out this work? HfH do want to support those leaseholders who are facing financial difficulty. New payment options were approved at Cabinet in July 2021. For resident leaseholders that are facing severe hardship, they can seek to secure funding from a High Street Bank/Building Society with the Council offering an interest-only payment option. This will be secured by a charge on the property, for the actual amount of the invoice.

85. Please let me know the terms of the Council’s prospective “offer to purchase”, in particular the purchase price, the terms and the envisaged timing until completion. Proposals are now available for the purchase (buyback) option.

Where a leaseholder thinks that selling their leasehold interest may be their preferred course of action, the Council may be willing to buy them out given the challenge they may face on the open market prior to completion of the major works. Our valuation advisers will provide an open market valuation on the basis that the property has been brought up to a good condition, including completion of the full scope of works set out in the recent s20 Notice. The estimated cost of works (adjusted for any cap being offered) will then be deducted from the post-works open market valuation to give a purchase price figure to be offered to buyback the property prior to the completion of the works. HfH is offering an individual meeting with each owner to discuss their personal financial circumstances and their preferences for payment arrangements. At that point, the buyback option can be discussed and, where this is the owner’s preference, a valuation can be instructed. Interested leaseholders should contact the Leasehold Services Team at [email protected] or on 020 8489 5611 (available Monday to Friday 8.45am-5pm) to arrange an appointment to discuss this.

86. What factors will the Council/HfH take into account when purchasing back the property? Will HfH be taking the estimate of proposed works into account and taking this figure from the value of the property before detailed surveys are carried out? See question 85 above. The valuation will need to take into account both the expected open market value of a similar sized property in this location and the estimated cost of works based on the current condition of the property, as well as the offer to each individual leaseholder, as detailed in question 113.

87. Are HfH assuming the work will increase the value of the property? If so, by how much would the value of the property increase? Maintaining the condition and quality of a home is likely to increase the value and saleability of the property. The increase will vary from property to property based on its characteristics and the scope of the work carried out.

88. Will the new pod affect my ability to sell or re-mortgage my property? The new modular extensions are classed as a permanent structure with a Built Offsite Property Assurance Scheme (BOPAS) accreditation which provides assurance of a minimum 60 year lifespan. Haringey Council believes that leaseholders will be able to re-mortgage and sell their properties in the future owing to these specifications.

89. Do you understand that by issuing this section 20 you have instantly devalued my property by £60k, it is now unsellable, and we are trapped in our property until the works are completed. In addition to this, if we did wish to sell, no one would be willing to take on the financial commitment to pay for the pod. How do you plan to rectify this? An open market value of a property should always consider the condition of the premises and any repairs needed. Whenever Section 20 notices are served, the detailed works cost estimates can have a negative impact on open market valuation of properties. A prospective purchaser will take into account the cost of works required before making an offer to buy. This is not unique to the properties in the Noel Park Major Works programme. Once works are completed, we would expect these properties to command strong open market prices.

90. Will HfH accept leaseholders find their own quotes for any works needed (if needed) to negotiate a buyback price? HfH and Haringey Council have prepared buyback proposals tailored to the circumstances relating to the Noel Park pod properties. For further information, contact the Leasehold Services Team at [email protected] or on 020 8489 5611 (available Monday to Friday 8.45am-5pm) and book an appointment. The estimated cost of works needed will be a relevant aspect of any negotiation over the property value.

91. What will be the role of the new liaison officer? Are they going to be addressing matters regarding the buyback scheme? The HfH resident liaison officers are responsible for keeping tenants and leaseholders abreast of the progress of the works and ensuring that the contractors are responding to any issues or concerns raised by residents. The details of the buyback scheme will be administered by other specialist staff in HfH and the Council.

92. Can leaseholders provide a survey to contest necessity of the works when negotiating a buyback price? The Council will consider any relevant evidence provided by a leaseholder in seeking to reach an agreed purchase value.

93. If leaseholders own both upper and lower flats of the same property, would we be able to buy the freehold and replace the pods ourselves?

Leaseholders can buy the freehold from the Council if both leaseholders agree. For further information contact the Leasehold Services Team at [email protected] or on 020 8489 5611 (available Monday to Friday 8.45am-5pm).

94. I have a single pod; will I be able to carry out the work to replace it myself? No. Haringey Council, as freeholder, is responsible for the external structure of the whole dwelling, including the extension.

History of the pods

95. To the nearest month, when were the original pods installed? The pods were installed in 1972. HfH and Haringey Council do not have a record of the precise installation dates for each of the pods. Our general record-keeping policy is to hold information for six years, although we do have some limited archives going back to the mid- 2000s and the Council holds some older Building Control and Planning records.

96. According to a Homes for Haringey handout issued in approximately May 2012, the original pods had an expected lifespan of 15 years. When did Haringey Council or Homes for Haringey first discuss works to replace them? HfH do not have a retained record of all previous Council discussions about replacing the pods. We have identified HfH documents from 2009 and subsequent years relating to the pods.

97. What were the conditions of guarantee for the existing pod and why were they not removed decades ago? No information is now available about any manufacturer’s guarantee for the original pods given the length of time since its installation around 50 years ago. In any case, it is unlikely any such guarantee would remain in effect today. There is no record available now of specific decisions taken not to remove the pods previously.

98. Why are leaseholders liable to pay for the removal of asbestos? The pods are constructed from a timber-framed enclosure with timber panels to the exterior and plasterboard internally, with asbestos insulation board ‘sandwiched’ in-between. Asbestos

27 is not considered harmful unless it is disturbed or damaged and remains in many buildings across the UK. A periodic inspection programme is carried out by HfH, in accordance with safety regulations, to ensure the asbestos has not been exposed or disturbed, with remedial work undertaken if any issues have emerged. During extensive building works, where the material is likely to be disturbed, asbestos is completely removed as part of the works. Asbestos forms part of the structure of the building, and under the terms and condition of the lease, the leaseholder is required to contribute to the cost of its removal.

99. When and how was it decided to use asbestos as a building material in the first place in the existing pod? Please list the names of any individuals that took this decision and process. The extension pods were installed circa 1972. Asbestos materials were commonly used in construction as they were believed to provide good quality sound and fire protection. It was only later that the harmful nature of the materials came to light. Records of the decision- making process, such as individuals’ names and why this decision was made, are not available now. Our general record-keeping policy is to hold information for six years.

100. When did the Council become aware that asbestos existed in our property? Why was the asbestos not removed once discovered as a health risk? There is no suggestion that the Council or HfH were ever unaware of the asbestos materials in these buildings. The industry health and safety guidance is that as long as asbestos-containing material is in good condition and safely contained, it is best managed and monitored on site rather than removed. HfH have a programme in place to carry out periodic asbestos surveys to identify any deteriorated materials and to undertake any specific remedial repairs to reduce the risk of asbestos exposure.

101. Did the Council or Homes for Haringey periodically review and monitor the plan to manage the asbestos so that the plan remained relevant and up to date? HfH has a programme of inspection of the pod structures to periodically check the condition of the asbestos material and to maintain the external cladding so that the structure remains watertight, until replacement of the extension happens as part of the major works programme.

102. When were leaseholders and tenants first made aware that asbestos was present in the pods? When did Haringey Council or Homes for Haringey first issue advice not to drill into the walls of the pods?

Our record-keeping policy is to hold correspondence for six years, so HfH do not have records of all previous correspondence with residents before 2014. In accordance with the HfH Alterations policy, residents are advised to seek authorisation before carrying out any work to their property. Residents are advised not to drill, sand, saw or otherwise intentionally damage the fabric of the property.

103. Given the obvious deterioration of the pods and the risk that asbestos was becoming exposed, why was the removal of asbestos not made a matter of the utmost urgency? The industry health and safety guidance is that as long as asbestos-containing material is in good condition and safely contained, it is best managed and monitored on site rather than removed. Removal of the asbestos from the pods cannot be done without extensive disruption and risk of exposure. In the case of the Noel Park area, in most cases the removal of the asbestos here would involve removing the whole pod structure and replacing it with a suitable new structure, hence this was included in the current Major Works programme. Our specialist asbestos advisers Manestream have confirmed: “Since being appointed Manestream have not identified any situation which has been serious enough to require it to be reported as a potential risk of exposure and where works have been identified we have made HfH and their specialist asbestos removal contractor aware of the works required and these have been completed by our next inspection, where reasonably practicable to do so. Asbestos only becomes dangerous when damaged or deteriorated and we are continuing our programme of inspection until the works to remove the asbestos in the bathroom pods are completed.”

104. Works to Noel Park were deemed to be ‘essential health and safety works’ in 2014 or earlier. While some works may have been done to tenants’ properties in the intervening time, it is clear that most of the major works on the estate have not yet been done. Why were the works deemed to be ‘essential health and safety works’? The repairs are essential works. The removal of asbestos is a health and safety issue and needs to be managed accordingly, as in the answer to question 98.

105. Does Homes for Haringey believe it has fulfilled its obligations to residents with regard to ‘essential health and safety works’? Yes, HfH have a programme to carry out visual inspections to check the condition of the pods and maintain the external cladding so that they remain watertight. We continue to carry out remedial repairs to maintain residents’ safety as far as reasonably practicable.

Other issues

106. I understand that the works being proposed are based on a discretionary decision Homes for Haringey or the Council took to elevate the properties following a “decency only model”, “decency plus model” or “holistic model”. Can you please confirm which model Homes for Haringey or the Council has chosen for Noel Park? The Noel Park pod project does not fall into any of the categories stated due to the unique nature of this project. The project is a standalone refurbishment project carried out under our Major Works programme, however the works carried out will bring the pod properties up to the Haringey Decent Homes Standard.

107. If the replacement pod needs repair or maintenance work within the confirmed lifespan of the pod who is liable to cover these costs? Under the terms of the lease, repairs or maintenance of the pod extension structure will be undertaken by the freeholder (HfH on behalf of Haringey Council). Leaseholder charges for qualifying repairs will be made in the usual way. However, the Council has agreed to guarantee the structure of the modular extensions for the first 10 years of their life.

108. If we choose to sell our property on the open market before the commencement of works and it is agreed that all the works are not necessary, what confirmation to a new leaseholder will HfH give to the estimated costs of the work considering the fluctuating proposed costs over the years? We wrote to leaseholders in May 2021 providing the latest cost estimates. These estimates can be provided to any prospective purchasers.

109. Please provide details as to how Homes for Haringey have met their obligations under the Equalities Act with regard to these proposals and the impacts on both landlords and tenants? The decision to go ahead with the works on Noel Park estate will primarily impact all residents living in properties managed by HfH, a significant number of whom share the protected characteristics. It is notable that BAME people and disabled people are overrepresented relative to the population of Haringey. There is no indication that the decision to go ahead with these works will result in any foreseeable negative impacts on any individual or group

30 that shares the protected characteristics. To the extent that the decision may enable properties to be brought up to the Decent Homes Standard, it can be expected to have a positive impact in relation to the Council’s public sector equality duty. The contractor carrying out the works is a body carrying out a public function on behalf of a public body and is therefore legally required to have due regard for the need to achieve the three aims of the public sector equality duty. If there is any indication of discrimination, harassment, or victimisation then the Council will need to urgently address that through established contract monitoring. More information is set out on our website here.

110. How does the proposed pod replacement with another pod meet the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals? The modular manufacturer fulfils the United Nations 17 Sustainable Development Goals as follows: Goal 1 – No Poverty – There is a strong link between disability and poverty. Poverty is not just measured in financial terms but in the social inclusion of the person into the communities. By providing sanitation facilities on the ground floor level, it allows for the person, regardless of physical or mental ability to be included in the social norm, and allow them to reserve their personal financial resources to other things rather than providing suitable sanitation facilities from their own pocket. Goal 2 – No Hunger – By providing suitable facilities, in the case of kitchen units, it provides a functional kitchen allowing the end user to create nutritious meals in their own home, rather than having to buy in pre-made foods. By not having to buy in food, it allows financial resources to be conserved, thus aiding Goal 1. Goal 3 – Good Health and Well-being – Provision of sanitation and food preparation areas aids good health and well-being. Not only in the physical, but also mental well-being in having a functional facility. Goal 4 – Quality Education – Whilst this will not directly improve the end user, the labour required to fabricate these units will support a skilled workforce. It is therefore logical that the development of these units will allow for the potential workforce to receive suitable training and education to develop their careers Goal 5 – Gender Equality – This links back to the factory not the user, but the supplier is an equal opportunities employer, and it has been noted by the Welsh Government that the supplier employs a diverse cross section of people, men and women of all ages and abilities. This neatly dovetails into Goals 1, 2 3 and 4

Goal 6 – Clean water and Sanitation – The provision of a bathroom and WC provides for this goal. Goal 7 – Affordable and Clean energy – Whilst the units don’t generate their own power, the units are built to achieve high thermal efficiency thus reducing the energy consumption of the household. By reducing the energy use of the household, it will contribute to the financial resources of the household. Thus aligning with Goals 1 and 2 Goal 8 – Decent work and Economic Growth – By fabricating these modules, the supplier will be able to develop and grow and potentially reduce the 20% of the local residents reliance on state benefits in time. Goal 9 – Industry, Innovation and Production – This is squarely fulfilled by the supplier. These modern offsite modular constructed units are at the leading edge of the industry. These units are not the old disposable, temporary units of the 1950’s prefab house surge. These units are covered by a 60 year assurance scheme. The build quality and construction standards are such that mortgage lenders and financial institutions are more than willing to offer finance against these units, such is the confidence in the modern methods of construction.

111. What are the precise next steps we leaseholders expect to encounter till the start and completion of the project?

Leaseholder observations were taken into consideration when the contract award report was presented to Cabinet to award the Phase 2 contract in July 2021. Now the contract has been awarded, the contractor will begin preliminary preparation works and further surveys before starting construction works on site. Given the lead-in time for planning permission and manufacture of the new modular extensions, the pod replacements in Phase 2 are likely to begin towards the end of the year. Other works (roof renewal, brickwork, door and window replacement) are likely to start ahead of the pod works. We currently anticipate that all the Phase 2 works will be complete by September 2022.

112: Can we see the new pod designs now rather than wait for Planning consent to be given?

Yes, the designs of the new modular extensions are now available on the Noel Park page of the HfH website in advance of planning permission being granted. Please note that the design could change as a result of the ongoing discussions with Planners.

113: What is the offer to cap leaseholder charges? How do I accept the offer?

We wrote to all 77 affected leaseholders on 12 August setting out the individual offer being made to each of them and attaching an acceptance declaration, to be signed and returned by 31 October 2021. These offers were made in line with the Cabinet report approved on 22 July, which set out a range of circumstances and cases:

Firstly, people who bought under the Right to Buy are entitled to have major works charges arising within 5½ years of purchase capped to the figures quoted in the S125 Notice served when they bought their flat. We are offering to cap those figures now, rather than wait until the final accounts for works are completed (which for some people may be outside the 5½ year period).

Secondly, people who live on the first floor but have no pod, would be required under the terms of the lease to pay towards the cost of pod replacement to the ground floor flat. We are offering not to charge them any proportion of the cost of installing the ground floor pod. Where the ground floor flat is owned by a leaseholder, their charges would be limited to what is chargeable under the lease, not increased by the reduced charge to the first floor owner.

Thirdly, for people who are resident leaseholders with a pod, the average cost of replacing a pod is c.£55,000, although charges vary due to the formula in the lease for apportioning costs according to relative property sizes. Concerns have been raised about the financial impact on resident owners, with some at risk of hardship and the loss of their homes. We are offering to cap the pod replacement element of the major works costs to a maximum of £25,000 for all these resident leaseholders.

Fourthly, people who are non-resident leaseholders with a pod. There is a strong moral case not to offer the same cap on costs to owners who are pursuing a profit motive as investors in these properties. However, we accept that some people have moved out and let their flats for other reasons. So we have drafted a hardship definition that reflects a range of circumstances.

We have a number of payment options available to assist in hardship circumstances, so we can consider whether additional options that are usually only offered to residential leaseholders can be applied to non-residents.

The main criteria is where the non-resident leaseholder has been unable to sell their home due to the major works bill and has left their home for hardship reasons. To demonstrate hardship we will look at whether any of the following five circumstances apply to you:

1. You were no longer able to pay for basic necessities for you and your family (food, educational needs and care, regular housing costs and utilities), and therefore were in financial hardship; 2. You or a member of your family that depends on you, are vulnerable and you left your home because it was no longer reasonable for your household to occupy the property; 3. Your household would otherwise have been forced to live apart; 4. You needed to care for a dependent family member, and so have had to move out temporarily but intend to return; 5. Your home was no longer appropriate for your circumstances (e.g. due to family size or disability).

These are the main reasons – however, there may be other circumstances that we can consider. If your personal situation is not reflected above, please let us know. In all cases, we will require full disclosure of your personal and financial circumstances to assist our evaluation and assessment of hardship. To demonstrate transparency in the process, we will appoint an independent expert (such as a Citizens Advice manager or debt advice specialist) to participate in the panel of officers responsible for evaluating and assessing hardship claims. The panel will make recommendations in cases of severe hardship, for approval by the Assistant Director of Housing. There will then be the opportunity to appeal to the Director of Housing, Regeneration and Planning whose decision will be final.

There are still some cases where the need for work to be done is being questioned by leaseholders and we are reviewing these. If you think any works listed to be done are not necessary, you can still raise this question with us.

To support leaseholders in checking the need for works and the cost of works, we are offering to fund an independent Quantity Surveyor to be selected by a panel of leaseholders. This Quantity Surveyor will act on your behalf, under your instructions, to scrutinise and challenge the need for works and the cost of works, throughout the contract period.

Finally, in all 77 cases, we are offering leaseholders the chance to agree a maximum service charge figure for works under this contract, as a full and final settlement. This was explained for each leaseholder in an individual offer letter, sent on 12 August.

You do not need to make payment arrangements with us until the invoices are issued in 2023. However, we are suggesting you arrange to meet us now to understand the payment options and so help you reach a decision about accepting your offer.

If you do not accept the offer made on 12 August, you will still be able to benefit from payment arrangements in line with the general policy (agreed at Cabinet in July). However, in that case the costs overall could increase by the end of the contract period, if you are a resident leaseholder you would not benefit from the offered £25,000 limit on pod replacement costs, if you are a S125 case you would not benefit from the offered cap if the statutory time limit expires before the end of the contract period, and if you are a no-pod case then you would become liable for a share of replacement costs for your downstairs neighbour’s pod.

In addition, for anyone interested in the buyback scheme, accepting the offer will make it easier to value their property now (the certainty over maximum costs will be used to calculate what the Council can offer as a purchase value). If you do not accept the offer made on 12 August, we will value homes for purchase based on deducting the full estimated works costs from an open market value if works were completed today.

Given the complexity of this situation, you may want to seek independent legal advice before accepting your offer.

113: How will the 7.5% leasehold services fee be calculated? On the total cost or the capped cost? The leasehold services management fee is £50 plus 7.5% of your individual proportion of the cost of works, capped at a maximum of £500. If a cap to any works costs is agreed, then the £50 plus 7.5% will be charged on the reduced amount. This £500 cap equates to overall work costs of c.£6,000.