More Anger Over IRS
The leaseholders’ forum on Wednesday 14 April was an angry one. Quite a few people left before the end of the meeting. Several expressed the opinion that they were wasting their time.
There is a gulf of understanding between the Stevenage Homes and the leaseholders attending. After the IRS public meeting in March, Lorraine O’Brien, the chief executive of Stevenage Homes In told The Comet:
“We don’t want anybody to be disadvantaged who live in a block of flats. We are not going to not do anything just because one leaseholder has sorted themselves out.”
This is the myth of the lone trouble-maker. The single leaseholder in a block who has “sorted themselves out”. A rediculous stereotype.
On Wednesday, one angry leaseholder pointed out he lived in a block where five out of the six flats has stated that they do not want the IRS. The sixth flat was vacant.
He was told going to have to pay towards an IRS because Stevenage Homes has a legal obligation as a landlord to provide good TV reception, although not a TV.
Building regulations allow only two satellite dishes on a building. Hence the need for an IRS. No one has ever explained why you can only have two aerials on a building. A building regulation is a building regulation, what more do you need to know?
Lack of Trust
One person asked for a full breakdown of the costs to be sent out. He suspected that leaseholders were being stitched up with more than their share of the costs.
He was told that this would not be possible because it would be too costly to do so. But if he wanted, he could come in to see the documents.
Not all documents will be available. Some are confidential commercial documents and so none of the business of the people who were actually going to foot the bill.
The law should be changed to force commercial details of public contracts to be made available to any interested parties. Companies will still bid for contacts, so whose interests are being served by preventing the people who are actually paying the bills from seeing these details?
Nothing Settled
So nothing has been settled. At least one person has stated the intention of challenging the cost at a leaseholders’ tribunal.
The attitude of Stevenage Homes towards people complaining has gone a long way to create this situation.
Lin Guyver — May 10, 2010 @ 16:09
i raised the point at the meeting that not all lease holders could afford this and the reply I got was that leaseholder had more money than council tenants and could afford to get a loan to pay. What a load of patronsing untrue rubbish. People choose to be council tenants and not buy property and could have the same job/income as a lease holder. They then get a small increase to the rent which does not reflect the £250 leaseholders are expected to pay.
Tim Neale — May 11, 2010 @ 14:57
I think economics has very little to do with this decision. I still have not heard how much we are going to be charged or when the work will be carried out.
They must have some idea by now. I know someone told me he was going to chase Stevenage Homes on this. I must get in contact with him to see what reply he has had.
Paul — May 14, 2010 @ 20:23
In a letter I got from them on the 31st March 2010 the cost is quoted as:
‘Regarding the cost of installation, this will be less than £170.00′ and goes on to say that due to the numbers they were installing they managed to lower it from £250 which other councils are charging.
Regards
Paul
Tim Neale — May 26, 2010 @ 19:43
Thanks Paul. We still have not had a definate price yet, so I suppose they will be billing after the work is completed.