Fair and Correct
A letter from Debbie Rabot, Director of Housing and Customer Services at Stevenage Homes. It is dated 25th August, one week after the original post. It includes :
We note the that you omitted to mention the inclusion of the opt-out form and the factsheet in the information provided to leaseholders in your blog. We regard this as unfair and incorrect representation of the facts and would ask you to correct it immediately.
And this from an organization which takes months to correct overcharging errors.
I usually restrict my moans to one thing per post
Hence my not mentioning the opt out and fact sheets. My original post was questioning what was wrong with the windows.
It turns out that new window restrictors are necessary because regulations have changed since the windows were fitted. These regulations state any opening greater than 4” is a category 1 threat.
Nowhere in the original fact sheet and letter was this explained. The original letter only says the windows restrictors fitted are considered faulty and need replacing. Hence my original reaction, “What is wrong with these windows?”
But the fact sheet does contain some useful information. It has a section for owner occupiers (resident leaseholders). This says:
Once an HHSRS category 1 hazard is identified the Council must act. What the council does about the hazard can vary depending upon the nature of the occupancy. Where children or others are clearly at risk it is likely that the restrictors would be required by the owner.
Where there are unlikely to be a person at risk the Council may limit action to serving what is known as a ‘hazard awareness notice’ formally advising the owner of the risk.
A notice will be revealed on local searches should the property change hands making incoming occupiers aware. Where a hazard awareness notice is served no charge is normally made.
If formal action is taken by the Council to require the restrictors then an administration charge (currently £250) will be made
So according to the fact sheet it is possible to opt-out of having restrictors fitted where there are no “children or others are clearly at risk”. I would probably have them fitted anyway, as a hazard awareness notice sounds a pain.
And it is clear that the Council may still force you to fit restrictors and charge you £250 for the trouble.
But on the accompanying opt-out form there is no allowance for an opt-out where there are no “children or others are clearly at risk”. It is is only an opt-out from a Stevenage Homes contractor carrying out the work.
In signing this form you commit to carrying out the work yourself within three months.
The last clause on the opt-out form is disturbing.
Where the fact sheet says:
If an accident were to happen at a property where a hazard awareness notice has been served then the owner(s) of the property are clearly more likely to be held responsible as the risk had been pointed out to them.
But in signing the opt-out form and you agree to the following:
You (the leaseholder) are and will be held responsible in the event of an individual(s) falling from any window within the flat.
Asking someone who fits restrictors themselves to accept a higher level of liability beyond what is stated in the fact sheet for a situation where no restrictors have been fitted at all.
So a “fair and correct representation of the facts”
The original letter was accompanied by a fact sheet that lacked important information and an opt-out form that confusingly ignores large parts of the fact-sheet and may have serious legal implications if signed.
