WALTHAM FOREST: Cost of repairs bill legal challenge revealed (From East London and West Essex Guardian Series)

Although it is shocking to learn that the Council has been so incompetent that local tax payers are to pick up a bill of £5 million, that is not the worst of it.

These people seriously thought it was OK to carry out work without competitive tenders and bill residents without any consultation. It turns out much of the work charged for was not needed at all!

These are people who constantly seek additional powers over our lives! They should not be allowed to do more than absolutely essential because they cannot be trusted to get things right.

First Ascham does a load of unwanted work. Then it orders the people who didn't want it to pay for it - and the law backs the residents. Then Ascham spends £114,000 trying to wriggle out of the mess.

And who has to foot the bill? We do, as always. Not just the £114,000 legal bills, but also the much bigger cost of the unwanted building work.

How many million pounds does that come to?

This whole sorry affair is a serious indictment of both the senior management and board of Ascham Homes, who thought that the answer to breaking the law themselves was to go to court and try to wriggle their way out of it, and also of the Council's Portfolio Holder for Housing; Cllr Marie Pye, who plainly had no grip whatsoever and failed miserably to hold Ascham to proper account.

Heads ought to roll.

Cllr Matt Davis wrote:
This whole sorry affair is a serious indictment of both the senior management and board of Ascham Homes, who thought that the answer to breaking the law themselves was to go to court and try to wriggle their way out of it, and also of the Council's Portfolio Holder for Housing; Cllr Marie Pye, who plainly had no grip whatsoever and failed miserably to hold Ascham to proper account.

Heads ought to roll.

Heads rolling has nothing to do with it.

The point here is that leaseholders as they are have to pay for maintainance of their buildings and find it painful that they are asked to contribute to costs of communal areas that they have very little to do with.

A person living on the ground floor feels hard done by to pay for a lift service and roof as they feel that because they are 'apart' from it, why should they pay?

Leaseholding is second class ownership and it is better to buy the freehold when available than to leave yourself open to the Gods.

It is the same story again and again. They are not competent enough to look after our council tax monies. They should be held personally liable when things like this happen. It's too easy to get some more money from us.

Bob Simms wrote:

Cllr Matt Davis wrote:
This whole sorry affair is a serious indictment of both the senior management and board of Ascham Homes, who thought that the answer to breaking the law themselves was to go to court and try to wriggle their way out of it, and also of the Council's Portfolio Holder for Housing; Cllr Marie Pye, who plainly had no grip whatsoever and failed miserably to hold Ascham to proper account.

Heads ought to roll.

Heads rolling has nothing to do with it.

The point here is that leaseholders as they are have to pay for maintainance of their buildings and find it painful that they are asked to contribute to costs of communal areas that they have very little to do with.

A person living on the ground floor feels hard done by to pay for a lift service and roof as they feel that because they are 'apart' from it, why should they pay?

Leaseholding is second class ownership and it is better to buy the freehold when available than to leave yourself open to the Gods.

True, my sister has had similar problems with her tenants who have gone into 'tenant mentality' and want everything for nothing.

The idea of a Landlord is so that everything is done by coordination, not all having different windows for example so it ends up like a dogs dinner.

Does this mean that people who, if properly consulted, would have paid a fair share (not a figure plucked out of the air, as seems to have happened), will now pay nothing? Are the successful leaseholders happy if this is so, or were these repairs totally uncalled-for?