CASP General Meeting 3rd March 2008

CAMDEN ASSOCIATION OF STREET PROPERTIES

Minutes of the general meeting held on Monday 3^rd March 2008.

Camden Town Hall

Judd Street, WC1

7.00 – 9.00pm

CASP Housing Surgery 6.00pm – 7.00pm

(Before the main meeting)

Speakers / Guests at the meeting
David Rodgers	Chair, Camden Association of Street Properties
Cllr Chris Naylor	Executive Member for Housing
Phillip Colligan	Deputy Director of Housing, Housing Renewals, LBC
Kim Wells	Head of Housing Repairs, LBC
Pat Hayden	District Manager, Kentish Town District Housing Office, LBC
Minute Taker	Paul Caton, Tenant Particpation Team, LBC

Item 1: Chairs Announcements
The Chair welcomed residents to the meeting and introduced the speakers for the evening, including Cllr Chris Naylor, Executive Member for Housing and members of Camden’s Housing management team.   The Chair announced details of Camden’s TP strategy that would be unveiled shortly.   CASP’s work during 2007-8   The Chair reported that the CASP Compact had now been signed – this had taken a considerable amount of time to achieve but hopefully this would now ensure that LBC street property tenants and residents would be supported in getting their voice heard   The CASP Compact had been drawn up in response to concerns raised by street property tenants and residents and the contents of the document would now guide the work of the Association.   The Chair spoke briefly about CASP walkabouts and invited members to speak to their CASP reps about arranging one.   CASP had also responded to a number of consultations including Camden’s Housing Management Improvement Plan (stage 1) and Investing in Camden’s Homes – copies of all consultation material was available for people to take away.
Item 1.1 Apologies received
Boris Johnson	Cllr Fulbrook
Cllr Graves	Cllr Abraham
Cllr Bryant
2. Councillor Chris Naylor, Executive Member for Housing.
Councillor Naylor gave a short introduction which outlined;   That a quarter of all tenants are in street properties and the importance of CASP in addressing those issues. Out of street properties there are over 2000 leaseholders properties, which is an area that also needs more representation More councillors from all parties need to be taking an interest in the issues facing street properties. He thanked the TP team for their work around the compact. He also outlined the plans to bring a number of services back in house. Inclusivity was outlined as a key issue, ensuring that there will be more representation for street properties in our structures and in looking at issues where there are communal grant needs. He was in favour of CASP joining the DMC’s and accessing relevant funding so long as certain criteria was met when applying for funding (i.e., groups of residents benefiting from any funding and not individual residents) He outline some of the main strategic issues; Investing in Camden, repairs, partnering, improved payment terms for leaseholders, progress on many fronts. Cllr Naylor called for the strategic groups to work towards setting priorities for the council and an autumn meeting to discuss this. He also asked for feedback about more local management issues and offered a performance management report to the committee
3. Investing in Camden’s Homes : Presentation by Phillip Colligan, Deputy Director of Housing.
Phillip Colligan Presented on ‘Investing in Camden’s homes’. There was then a question and answer session   There was a question from the floor about the income generated by selling homes in Camden.   Philip Colligan responded and made the following points;   §  Some properties are not part of this process and some valuations were overachieved at auction. §  We have a target of meeting 110,000,000 upper receipt of 500 properties can be sold.   Cllr Naylor - It is regrettable we have sold 8 properties and raised 11 million. We wish to keep as many properties as we can. In other boroughs they are going down the stock transfer route Camden is not.   A resident highlighted the fact that the price achieved at 7,500,000 is a 50% mark up. Will you be apologising? She requested clarification. At the time this was written Camden had said over 3,850,000 only was raised from the sale.   Philip Colligan - There were 5 properties sold from LBC stock raising £4,540,000. We had to buy leasehold of £650,000 in addition 2 of the properties were formerly care homes. This distinction was not made by the media, Care homes are not part of the HRA.   A resident asked why had it been necessary for Camden to sell care homes?   Philip Colligan - This is a separate department. We can provide follow up info if requested.   Another resident asked a question around how this would affect young people looking to buy affordable homes and felt this policy was lacking protection for leaseholders when properties are sold off.   Chris Naylor responded - We share these concerns and we are looking at other ways to make housing affordable. But the situation we are in is that we need to invest in the homes we have and keep it to a standard for Camden residents. This is the position Camden has taken.   Another resident complained that tenants felt alienated from the process and felt they haven’t had a voice. What concerns us is that not enough has been done to stop the sell-offs. How have we been involved in these decisions, we also wanted to go to the minister but were excluded?   Cllr Naylor - Every resident was sent a consultation booklet and there were other events. The results of the consultation were overwhelmingly in favour. He outlined the difficulties in accessing ministerial housing meetings. We wrote to the minister, Yvette Cooper about the changes to Housing subsidies. It is difficult when you cannot get access to ministers.   The resident who’d raised the initial point responded by asking will you bring tenant reps with you and put together a cross party delegation to see the Housing Minister?   All political parties at one point or another had supported the idea of direct investment. It now made sense for all parties to unite in order to put forward a strong argument to central government.   There needs to be a united voice in Camden. Had there been good management locally and the properties were up to scratch then you wouldn’t need to be selling off the properties.   Cllr Naylor - The only reason is to bridge the gap in funding. If direct funding were to arrive then we would stop the sell-offs immediately. The Chair made a point about the importance  of cross party unity needed to challenge government policy.   A resident pointed out that she had redecorated her property which was in a terrible state when she got it and wanted to know why they had got into that state   A resident asked why it has taken so long to get people to be involved in making decisions? Had you considered getting involved with UCH and reviewed the property sell-offs then key workers may have had an opportunity to work with us.   Cllr Naylor - Government rules require us to sell off to developers, we don’t like these rules. Year one will be a pilot to allow us to learn lessons. Not enough money has been going into property for a long time. As for fining tenants then if the property is in a bad state because it’s had no money spent on it then we can’t do this if it’s from neglect then we can look at this.   Philip Colligan responded that Govt has placed extreme restrictions on this process. In order to keep 100% of the money generated from the sale then we have to sell to developers who are forced to do the works within 5 years under the agreed covenant.   A resident responded by making the point that it would be useful to understand how Camden assesses the amount of work that needs to be done. Is it the margin of the value and the work to be done?   Philip Colligan – the figure is £20,000 per 1 bedroom property then amount goes up. Nominal amount for each property is about £9,000. This doubles with the sale we itemise the works that need to be undertaken. They have 3 years to comply with the works. This is then checked against costs and works are surveyed.   Another resident reminded the meeting that a request had been made for a united front to put pressure on the govt for direct investment. Could the meeting have a response?   Cllr Naylor - We haven’t been able to convince the govt, neither could the previous administration. 2 other factors affect us: There is a decent homes requirement and most councils are working towards a 2010 date and many have completed. Here half of our stock is not up to this standard.   Cllr Naylor agreed to speak to Cllr Keith Moffitt, Leader of Camden Council about the matter. If it is decided such a presence will be useful, he will look at a way to go forward and involve people.   The CASP Committee read a letter calling for unity and asking for cross party tenure to challenge the housing sell off policy and residents at the meeting in support of the idea were asked if they would like to sign the letter.   Councillor Naylor restated that there are no plans for stock transfer and PFI. He welcomes the proposal   A resident at the meeting raised the issue that she had been moved out of her property for essential repairs and that her house had been sold without her knowledge and consent..   Pat Hayden pointed out that the tenant was offered another property.   The resident in question denied that this was the case. The chair suggested that the matter could be investigated following the meeting.   Another resident raised a point that the issue raised serious concerns around communication as some people who are moved out temporarily are not being told that their properties are being sold. This was a matter of much concern.   A resident requested to know the criteria for selling these properties?   Cllr Naylor - we will investigate. I would trust that the properties being sold are being managed properly by staff.   A resident requested to know the definition of under utilised land to build upon? Philip Colligan - land that is underused or empty. The resident responded does this include children’s play grounds The land in question is a football pitch.   Cllr Naylor - When you have a bit of land that is unused then we can think about how we can bring it back into use. There are no plans I know of to build on playgrounds   There was further discussion on empty homes and housing sell off.   A resident asked how was any new building to be financed in the future given that the funds raised are for improving existing stock?   Cllr Naylor - Took the point that Camden needs to be clearer on what we mean for vacant homes. Investment, Camden need to invest that homes are safe and up to good condition. We are getting extra money to address overcrowding from the government. In terms of issues of ownership we aren’t allowed to build direct but we can look into partnerships. The Government at present gives 50% more money to housing corp than to council for building. We can do this through, housing trusts, private developers etc.   A resident requested to know whether  the council was prepared to make the surveyors reports public before any property sale so they can be properly scrutinised?   Philip Colligan - Details of the work required are made public. If you look at auction details this is covered.   A member felt tenants should be privy to such information, including details of all costings, before any properties are put up for auction.   Philip Colligan - Our decision to do this is to get the maximum value and it may be commercially sensitive and not always be appropriate.   Another resident raised a question about Camden selling off sheltered housing?.   Cllr Naylor - We share these concerns other boroughs are selling off properties to RSL’s we are not. I will not commit to saving council housing that is falling down.
4. Housing Management Improvement Programme: Presentation by Pat Hayden, District Manager, Kentish Town DHO, LBC.
Pat Hayden presented on the proposed changes under HMIP and outlined the following suggested changes;   §  They have consulted on the proposals. §  They split functions into work streams. §  There will be the creation of a central rents team with extra anti social behaviour staff in April §  The caretaking service review under way (A new paper sets out no of options for discussion) §  Their will be a central team to deal with empty properties §  Role of housing officers is far to complicated which is why these duties are to be centralised. We are looking to provide services on a wards basis etc.   HMIP Question and Answer session   Concerns were raised by the floor around a central rents call centre, including;   §  Lack of local knowledge §  Antisocial behaviour and vulnerable people   Pat Hayden – The central team will not be a call centre they will be out in the community. Camden’s intention is to make it easier to contact people for voids also ASB coordinators will provide enhanced responses   A resident raised the point that at one time there used to be anti-social behaviour (ASB) officers based at each District Housing Office, why did this change? How can you convince me this is not a cost cutting exercise?   PH - there were ASB officers in Gospel Oak and Camden Town because this is where ASB was highest. We know we need to be efficient making savings is part of this due to budgetary needs. It’s also about looking about how we improve our services.
5. Camden’s repairs service: Presentation by Kim Well, Head of Repairs, LBC
Kim Wells presented on recent changes to Camden’s Repairs Service.   Repairs Service Question and Answer session   A question was raised from the floor about customer satisfaction and customers waiting for repairs for some time.   Kim Wells - We need to bring in investment to improve the stock but this is not an excuse for poor performance.   A leaseholder at the meeting raised an individual enquiry.. Kim Wells agreed to look into it given further information   A resident asked a question about carpets being ripped up and not re-laid even when reported after a repair. Kim Wells agreed to look into it given further information   The Chair thanked everybody for attending and the meeting closed at 9.10pm.

CASP General Meeting 13th October 2005

Minutes of General Meeting

Housing Management

Thursday 13^th October 2005

Hampstead Old Town Hall (Council Chamber)

Haverstock Hill, NW3

7.00PM - 9.00PM

CASP General Meeting 18th May 2005

Minutes of General Meeting

Crime & Anti-Social Behaviour

Wednesday 18^th May 2005

Camden Town Hall (Council Chamber)

Judd Street, WC1

7.00PM - 9.00PM

Cllr Anna Stewart, Executive Member for Community Safety

Ian Walker, Anti-Social Behaviour Action Group (ASBAG), LBC

Dave Francis, Camden Community Safety Team, LBC

Angela Spooner, District Housing Manager, Hampstead, LBC

Sarah Morris, Tenant Liaison Client Officer, LBC

David Rodgers, Chair, CASP.

Minutes: Camden Association of Street Properties

Please note: the term 'resident' has been used throughout the minutes to refer to tenants and residents.

1)     Welcome and Introductions

David introduced himself as Chair of CASP and also the other guest speakers for the evening.

2)     Apologies

David announced that Bill Smith and Anna Souza had sent their apologies.

Cllr Anna Stewart announced that Cllr Raj Chada might not be able to attend the meeting due to illness but said he would do his best to attend.

3)     CASP Announcements

David asked people's permission if it would be OK to tape the meeting. This would help to ensure accurate minutes, etc.  As there were no objections, this was agreed.

Post-meeting note: after the meeting the tape recorder was found not to be working!

David announced that CASP was considering entering into a formal 'compact' with Camden Council. The "compact', if set up, wasn't a legal agreement, but would provide an additional tool for residents living in LBC street properties to use to access council services, etc.

David also announced that the CASP website would hopefully soon be up and running and thanked John Rutter, CASP committee member, for the time he had taken on the project.

Post-meeting note: CASP's website can now be accessed via www.casweb.org/casp, although the site is still currently under construction.

It was also announced that CASP still planned to do a formal deputation to Camden's Overview and Scrutiny Commission (OSC) on the subject of how the housing department provide services to tenants and residents living in LBC street properties. CASP was still collecting 'evidence' and would present this to Camden's OSC later in the year.

post-meeting note: CASP's deputation to Camden's OSC took place on June 14^th 2005. For minutes of the meeting, please access Camden Council's website www.camden.gov.uk

David also said a few words about the subject being discussed at tonight's meeting - crime and anti-social behaviour. There was a misconception that crime and anti-social behaviour  only takes place on Camden's estates. Residents living in LBC street properties were frequently affected by such problems and the number of residents expressing these concerns indicated that that it was in fact more difficult for residents living in these properties to access council services to combat such problems. He had also been informed that there was a six-month waiting list for sound monitoring equipment, which was often used to support residents to collect evidence.

4)     Minutes of CASP General Meeting

The minutes of the last General Meeting were accepted as an accurate record.

5)     Adoption of CASP's amended (Provisional) Constitution.

The Constitution & Code of Conduct was proposed by Geoff Smith and seconded by Anna Fitzgerald. As there were no further comments / amendments, etc, the Constitution & Code of Conduct was formally accepted.

6)     Anti-Social Behaviour - What is it and how does it affect people living in Camden?

Cllr Anna Stewart addressed the meeting:

Anna said that a 3-year strategy for a "safer Camden" had been launched and tackling anti-social behaviour was at the core of the strategy, as crime & anti-social behaviour still remained the no 1 concern amongst Camden residents. The approach adopted, however, did not just rely on ASBO's, but tried to offer a range of choices to try and address problems around crime and anti-social behaviour, including support services for drug users.

There was still a problem around people's perception and fear of crime being greater than the risk of actually experiencing crime, as statistics now showed that crime rates in some areas were now in fact falling, and this was a problem which needed to be addressed.

Anna also referred to the findings of the crime and drugs audit, which had gone to a number of stakeholders for consultation.

David asked about the issue of consultation and whether residents living in LBC street properties had been informed and asked for their views on the subject.

Anna replied that a number of reports had gone to the DMC's for comment. She, however, was now aware that DMC's did not represent the majority of residents living in LBC street properties and hopefully this was something that could be addressed in the future. CASP had also only recently re-launched and this had been another problem. CASP, however, would be involved in all future consultations.

There was also a firm commitment by Camden to make neighbourhoods safer and this was reflected in a number of new initiatives, including the safer neighbourhood's initiative. Dedicated teams of officers would provide highly visible, additional police resources in areas identified as needing additional resources. A number of citizens' panels would decide where the resources were most needed and any progress was closely monitored.

There was also a need to restore public confidence in the criminal justice system, by working closer with a number of different agencies.

Ian Walker addressed the meeting:

Bloomsbury, Kings Cross and Camden Town were "class A" areas for drugs markets. Camden had already obtained 160 ASBO's and over 90% of the orders related to drug dealers/users.

Changes in legislation also gave authorities new powers to close 'crack houses' quickly. Mornington Crescent, Gascony Avenue, Prince of Wales Road, Camden Square, were examples of areas where 'closures' had happened. In fact, 22 crack houses had been closed during the past 18 months. Nine of these were in estate based properties and the remainder were street properties.  It was, however, important that problems were simply not displaced to other areas. 

Housing injunctions were introduced in1996 and were very useful tools for addressing issues around anti-social behaviour. One advantage of ASB injunctions was that they are fairly quick to obtain. They were also used to cover problems relating to council, leasehold and private tenants and residents. Hearsay evidence was acceptable allowing housing officers or police to give evidence on behalf of those residents in fear of crime.

The Housing department used to evict people from their properties, but now preferred to issue injunctions, as this encouraged a more "holistic" approach to the problem. Support from other agencies was actively encouraged. If the injunction was breached, a person could be imprisoned for up to two years. ASB injunctions were designed to prohibit residents from causing problems for other residents and it also applied to visitors, etc. If an ASB Injunction was breached, it was also possible to obtain a quick eviction notice.

Dispersal notices in operation in some parts of the borough were also proving to be a success in tackling some forms of anti-social behaviour on streets, particularly relating to youth disturbance, etc.

Dave Francis addressed the meeting:

Dave said that there were lots of terms flying about regarding the meaning of tenant participation and community engagement but what did it all mean? The one thing they all have in common is that they are all trying to focus on how to involve local people. There were certainly examples of where Camden had got things wrong but recent evidence suggested that things were improving and this had been demonstrated in a number of ways. 

There were also a number of ways that residents could get more involved - the safer neighbourhood panels, police sector working groups, CPCG (Camden Police Consultative Group) safer schools, community chest project which encouraged people to get more involved at a grassroots level.

It was also important to remember that Camden was a very diverse borough and that efforts had to be made to "listen" and "engage" many different voices and the recently launched Somali Forum was given as an example of such work. It was, however, also important to let Camden know when things were not working.

7)     Question and Answer Session

One resident described how he'd experienced anti-social behaviour for the past 7 years. His life had become "hell" and he felt that no help had been forthcoming despite bringing the issue to the attention of the DHO and the local police.

Concerns were also expressed about Camden evicting residents from one property and re-housing them elsewhere, hence displacing the problem but not dealing with it and causing more misery for residents in the process.

Anna commented that it was becoming clearer that there were specific issues around street properties that needed addressing.

Ian Walker commented that the case being described seemed rather unusual.

Another resident questioned whether the problem being described was really that unusual, as he was also aware of a number of other similar cases. Anti-social behaviour could ruin people's lives and it was crucial to use all pieces of available legislation to address the problem. It was also necessary, however, to make efforts to turn around our current culture.

Another resident commented that her home had been burgled three times and that no help had been forthcoming from the DHO (Kentish Town). She had contacted the police for assistance but had been offered no support or advice on community safety whatsoever. She now felt thoroughly insecure in her home where she was also witnessing regular anti-social behaviour.

Anna responded that she was prepared to look into the issue on the resident's behalf.

One resident raised the issue of how important it was for street properties to have good quality locks to deter crime, particularly ground floor properties which were particularly vulnerable.

One resident asked what were the '"trigger" levels for trying to obtain an injunction?

If threatening behaviour one serious incident would be enough to seek an injunction. However, for less serious incidents a series of letters would be sent before proceeding to seek an injunction, warning the perpetrator of the possible consequences of their actions

A resident commented that it was important to place the problem of anti-social behaviour in the correct context and in relation to LBC street properties in the sense that residents living in these properties did not have access to the same support mechanism (caretakers, Patch Managers, etc) in the same way as residents living on Camden's estates. Caretakers were often the "ears and eyes" of Camden's estates and their input was often vital in supporting residents to tackle problems. Much had also been said about what services were available to address problems, the success stories, but how did everything translate into providing a better service for residents at a grassroots level? District Housing Offices were also often the first point of contact for residents but how were the policies and procedures in place to guide DHO staff designed to take into account the needs of LBC street property residents?

Angela Spooner addressed the meeting and said that it would not be possible to comment on individual cases due to issues around confidentiality. However, residents living in street properties were entitled and did receive the same level of support as residents living on Camden's estates. Estate Officers would perform the same role as caretakers in providing support in such cases and were responsible for all tenancy related matters, including dealing with issues around anti-social behaviour.

The resident responded by asking if this was reflected in an Estate Officers job description and requested that a copy be forwarded.

Angela continued that there was a small community safety district budget which could be accessed in some cases to fund small improvements. This was apart from the repairs budget which could only be spent on repairs.

Another resident commented that it would be useful to invite all District Managers to the next meeting and this was felt generally to be a good idea.

Another resident commented that it was about time that Camden demonstrated "ownership" of street properties, as at the present time this did not appear to be happening. DMC's were largely estate focused and LBC street properties could not access budgets in the same way as estates.

One resident commented that it made sense for Camden to try and address issues around LBC street properties and community safety during discussions around capital works and this would provide a "speedier" solution.

8)     Conclusion

David thanked the speakers for addressing the meeting and said the discussion had been most interesting. However, it was clear that a number of issues needed addressing around street properties and anti-social behaviour. It was now part of CASP's role to take these discussions forward with the relevant officers and Cllrs and would report any progress to residents.

9)     Report from Camden's Strategic Housing Group

Petra Dando gave the report on behalf of CASP.

Petra explained that herself and Jessica Marsh, CASP Committee member, were now attending Strategic Housing Group meetings to ensure that LBC street property tenants and residents had input into the new strategy.

Each local authority is required to have in place a strategy that reviews its housing related issues, sets housing priorities and objectives. The strategy would also affect all major aspects of housing within an authority's area including condition of housing stock, particularly with regard to the Decent Homes Standard, the needs of particular sections of the community, links with neighbourhood renewals and regeneration projects, affordability, comparing house prices, rents and local incomes, the performance of RSL's, local landlords, etc, analysis of housing markets across all sectors and particularly any mismatch between supply and demand.

Back in 2002 Camden made the decision to merge all housing strategies - homelessness, private sector (including empty property), supporting people and disability, etc, and one of the key challenges was to ensure that all stakeholders (including different housing tenures, etc) were properly consulted on the merging proposals. However, the group had expressed concern about the timetable for consultation as the intention was to approve the framework of the strategy at the July Executive.

The following points were also raised:

·         The HRA business plan must be consistent with the strategy

·         Camden's Housing Strategy must be consistent with national housing policy

·         The strategy should link into regional and sub-regional strategies as well as meeting the authority's wider objectives.

·         A large thrust behind the review appears to be meeting the government's Decent Homes Standard.

The following concerns were expressed:

·         That the consultation period for the document was too short;

·         That some of the positive items contained in earlier strategies might be lost in the process

·         That Camden should not commit to the Decent Homes Standard, as the target was unrealistic.

·         That shifts towards regional decision-making will impact on the importance of local strategies.

A number of discussions had also taken place regarding changes to the way Camden currently allocates its homes.

post-meeting note: those who would like a copy of the full report, or would like further information about CASP, please contact Chrissie Baverstock on 020 797-2377 or at chrissie.baverstock@camden.gov.uk.

10)  Any Other Business

None

11)  Close of Meeting

The meeting closed at 9.10pm.

Please note: The next CASP General Meeting will take place on Thursday 13^th October 2005 and will take place at the Old Hampstead Town Hall, 213 Haverstock Hill, London NW3 4QP at 7pm.

CASP General Meeting 17th February 2005

Minutes of CASP General Meeting

Thursday 17^th February 2005

Old Hampstead Town Hall

7pm

David Rodgers (DR) Chair, CASP

Cllr Raj Chada, Executive Member for Housing

David Padfield (DP) Head of Home Ownership Services

Marek Wiluszynski (MW) District Manager, Holborn

Minutes: Camden Association of Street Properties

Please note: The term 'resident' has been used throughout the minutes to refer to tenants and residents. 

David Rodgers introduced himself as Chair of CASP and also the other guest speakers for the evening. He announced, however, that Sue Robertshaw, Assistant Director of Housing (Renewals) had sent her apologies at the last moment due to a bad bout of flu. He also hoped that Cllr Raj Chada would be able to fill in somewhat for Sue Robertshaw although he did not expect his responses to be as technical. DR also thanked MW for volunteering to try and answer some of the items raised during the meeting.

DR announced that CASP had requested that Camden's Overview and Scrutiny Commission (OSC) set up a formal scrutiny panel to look specifically at issues affecting LBC street property tenants and residents. Between now and the beginning of the summer it was important for CASP to collect 'evidence' and help build a strong case.

DR thanked the Committee including Sarah (Morris) for their hard work and also Cllr Raj Chada who had been supportive during the 'relaunch' period.

DR announced that a 'Safer Communities' police meeting would take place on March 7^th at Pax Lodge (7pm) in the Belsize ward.

DR also announced that the date of the next CASP General Meeting would be Wednesday 18^th May 2005 at Camden Town Hall (7-9pm)

DR highlighted the contents of a report entitled, 'Housing Capital Programme Consultation Policy'. The report had been discussed by Camden's Overview and Scrutiny Commission (OSC) on July 27^th 2004 and Camden's Executive on July 28^th 2004. The purpose of the report was to ask the Executive Member for Housing to agree the Consultation Policy for the Housing Capital programme. DR advised that people should read the document as it outlined how Camden should be consulting its tenants and residents on the issue of capital works.

Cllr Raj Chada, Executive Member for Housing, addressed the meeting:

David Rodgers, Chair of CASP had raised a number of concerns with regard to street properties and capital works. How is the process decided? A database was updated every five years regarding the state of the stock (Stock Condition Survey) including information such as which properties required the most urgent works. This was updated after major works had been carried out. If a resident highlighted the need for major works the Council would try to address but limited funds meant that the Council couldn't always carry out works. Regarding the issue of poor performing consultants and contractors, Camden has and will take action where there has been a clear failure to perform. Work should be of an agreed standard and each stage of work should be checked by a Clerk of Works. Once this was completed, Camden would sign off as being satisfactory. Did there exist a programme to maintain street properties? Yes. A seven-year cycle of works which would usually follow on any major works programme and also a 3-year cycle of drainage maintenance.  If works were not carried out to a satisfactory standard, it was essential to report the situation to the council.

Cllr Chada went on to say that funding was still an issue as no "fourth option" had been identified since tenants and residents in Camden had voted "No" to an ALMO. However, there were no plans to transfer or propose PFI (Private Finance Initiative) for street properties. It direct funding was forthcoming it wasn't clear how much would be allocated to street properties in comparison to estates as Camden did not yet know how much funding would be made available to Camden.

One resident asked Cllr Chada if Camden released the money to contractors before signing off? Cllr Chada replied that it depended on the contract. The resident then responded, "If so, why ask leaseholders to pay the sum before the contract is complete?"

Cllr Chada continued that If dissatisfied after the "snagging" period the contract would not expire for a further 6/12 months depending on the contract and Camden would withhold further payment for this period. An example was given where Camden was taking a contractor to court and was expected to win on the grounds that works had not been completed to a satisfactory standard.

David Padfield, Head of Home Ownership, addressed the meeting.

DP opened by saying that Camden had a legal duty to consult leaseholders about any proposed works prior to entering into an agreement with a contractor. These terms were set out in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and has now been revised in Section 151 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 that became effective on 31 October 2003.

His department was responsible for sending out section 20 notices to all leaseholders. Leaseholders would first receive a Notice of Intent to carry out capital works based on detailed information provided by consultants. This would also provide leaseholders with the opportunity to submit any comments about the proposed scheme. Once comments are received we try and amend the proposals where possible but this does not mean that the works can be stopped if there is a clear reason for the works to take place. It wasn't always possible at this stage to inform leaseholders about the cost of such works as detailed specifications would not yet have been done or contractors asked to tender for works. Once a more detailed specification of works had been drawn up the Council would then seek tenders from at least four contractors. A second notice would then be sent to leaseholders with information such as the estimated amount leaseholders would be asked to contribute towards the works with a further opportunity to submit any comments about the scheme. There were a number of payment options to ease the burden from leaseholders paying for works. These included ten monthly interest-free installments, a Service Charge Loan from the Council to enable leaseholders to spread the payments over 25 years, capping bills at 10,000 pounds and also buying back the property from the leaseholder in cases of extreme hardship.

In order to calculate the final cost to leaseholders - at the end of the defects period and when all the fees have been paid - it was necessary to carry out a complete audit of the costs and only then could a final amount be determined.

Regarding the issue that had been raised about payments to contractors - this would depend on the contract but there would usually be staged payments made throughout the contract and these would usually amount to 90% of the total contract value. The remaining 10% would be withheld until the end of the defects liability period - usually 12 months after completion of the contract.

One resident raised the issue of capital works in Gaisford Street (May 2002) and highlighted a number of serious issues, which had highlighted the scheme.

DP had carried out the investigation into the Council's mishandling of the scheme, which had been very problematic. The capital service charges cancelled amounted to 600,000 pounds. Since then, the Council had done much to try and rectify the problems highlighted by the scheme. In a block of flats capital works charges are easier to estimate but in street properties it was slightly more complex as it was often more difficult to get an accurate specification. It was important to concentrate efforts on getting an accurate specification.

Cllr Chada said the Council had acknowledged what had gone wrong with Gaisford Street and it was now crucial to start focusing on getting things right.

Cllr Gerry Harrison, who had advocated on behalf of residents in Gaisford, Caversham & Islip Street, highlighted a number of concerns such as the lack of "synergie" between Home Ownership Services and Capital Renewals. The success of a particular scheme also often depended on the calibre of the project manager in charge of the overall scheme. There were examples of good project managers but also bad project managers.

One resident accused the Home Ownership Services and other sections of the Housing Department of "violating" the rights of leaseholders and described a scenario where "complacency" seemed to rule. Were not all leaseholders supposed to have the same rights? Did the Home Ownership Unit not check when they allegedly sold a piece of land (e.g., a garden) that the rights of the other residents (leaseholders & tenants) in that property were not included in the sale - thus giving the purchasing leaseholder control of the other residents' rights? What future safeguards have been put in place by Home Ownership and Housing Management to ensure that other residents do not suffer the same fate?

DP responded that the case being referred to was a unique case.

The resident who'd asked the question expressed dissatisfaction at the response.

Another resident asked if Camden had started to address the problem of not taking notice of concerns raised by tenants and leaseholders during the consultation process. For example, if a resident was aware of a particular problem(s) in their property which they knew would pose a problem once works commenced how is the problem acted on as contractors could be very complacent?

MW responded that there was an extensive consultation with residents for 12 months before the start of any scheme and this would provide an opportunity for residents to raise any items of concern. Items would also be noted as part of the stock condition survey.

Another resident felt this would be rather difficult as no two street properties are the same and to get it completely right would involve surveying every street property.

A former Officer of CASP said she had resigned because of "banging her head against a brick wall" for too long. Capital works had been carried out on her property but had still not been completed two years later. The staff employed at the start of the scheme had now all left. She had also given 'evidence' during the repair's scrutiny panel and questioned how effective the whole process had been.

A CASP Committee member responded that CASP had requested that a panel be set up to look specifically at problems affecting LBC street properties. The repair's scrutiny panel had looked at problems with repairs on estates and street properties. Some of the problems being highlighted in general were particularly unique to street property tenants and residents.

One resident asked how did Camden get a detailed specification? Nobody wanted incomplete works.

DP responded that as part of the consultation process residents should receive a specification but if it didn't contain full details of works needed it was important to inform the Council.

One resident commented that as Camden Council had no policy of paying interest on overpayments by leaseholders, wasn't Camden just taking money from leaseholders?

DP responded that each lease sets out a leaseholder's obligation to contribute towards the landlords costs of carrying out their repairing obligations. He went on to say that annual service charges were divided between flats and that capital service charges were divided relating to rateable value, so larger properties contribute more than smaller properties

Cllr Bucknell commented that the cost of works seemed to be well over the top. How could Camden ensure that it was getting a good deal from its contracts? Was there price fixing when Camden's name was mentioned?

Cllr Chada responded that he was not aware of any such arrangement.

DP responded that all contracts were competitively tendered and Camden would award the contract to the tender who provided "best value". It was important for the Council to choose a contractor who could ensure that the quality of work was of a good standard as well as being reasonably priced. In a very simple, straightforward scheme, Camden would most often opt for the cheapest tender, but in a more complicated scheme, requiring much specialist input, the decision would be based on 70% quality and 30% cost evaluation.

One resident highlighted the inadequacy of Camden's complaints procedure and said that she had been left no option but to take Camden to court over the state of disrepair to her property. You get to stage one and then to stage two, and then if you look at stage two, you notice that it's no different to stage one and then stage three, which is no different to stage two, apart from a slightly fuller explanation.  She also had little confidence in Camden's scrutiny system, as it was Camden Councillors who oversee the entire process. She went on to say, "Yes, you listen and all you do is pay lip service. When are you going to do something about it?"

Cllr Chada replied that he felt things in general in Camden were progressing and had improved.

Another resident highlighted the fact that their property (Lyndhurst Gardens) had not had capital works for over twenty years.

A CASP Committee member replied that it had not helped that LBC street properties had been effectively left without any voice for years.

David Rodgers (CASP Chair) announced that CASP had received a number of questions by e-mail from residents, mainly elderly or disabled residents who'd been unable to attend tonight's meeting.

One lady who lived in West Hampstead raised the issue of how do Camden contractors deal with environmentally sensitive issues such as damage to private gardens and valuable wildlife whilst works are being planned or carried out. Does Camden have in place a specific policy to address such issues or can tenants and residents expect nothing more than a "search and destroy'" attitude when raising such items.

Please refer to handout from Sue Robertshaw

A lady from Kentish Town wished to be reassured that our homes were not going to be sold or transferred by Camden Council. "We hear so very little about investment in Camden's street properties and we always seem to be last on the list to get things done. Our homes have provided many generations of families with much needed social housing and Camden should encourage this trend to continue for many years to come. If Camden Council is lobbying central government to get more money for our homes could they speak a little louder - I'm 86 and I don't have a hearing problem!

Cllr Chada replied that Camden was doing as much as it could to lobby the government for more money. He hoped that at any moment he would receive a call from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to confirm that the government had released the funding to Camden.

A lady who lives in Gospel Oak highlighted the issue that Camden must receive many complaints from residents regarding noise nuisance. Wouldn't it make sense to carpet communal areas, including stairs when these areas are being refurbished? It would also encourage more residents to take pride in the areas.

Please refer to handout from Sue Robertshaw

A resident at the meeting also raised concerns about an ongoing capital works project in Harrington Square. Camden was apparently taking legal action against the former contractors who'd started the works. There had been examples throughout the scheme of the Clerk of Works, Resident Liaison Officer and Renewals not working together and this reflected very much on the outcome of the scheme. There was also an enormous turnover of staff. Only right at the end did Camden start to listen to residents' concerns. Just who did one contact when things went wrong? It was also important for tenants and leaseholders to work together as many of us felt neglected and isolated.

Another resident commented that it  was crucial for Camden to decide what a specification is and advised leaseholders not to pay if they felt unjustifiably clobbered.

DP responded that if residents felt "ripped off" they could go to a building company and get the works costed - some of the costs could be huge - scaffolding for example was hugely expensive.

DP also advised any leaseholder considering taking this course of action to inform Camden why they were withholding charges as Camden had the right to take residents in such cases to court but by then it was too late.

One resident commented that the same problem with contractors kept coming up year after year. Didn't Camden know by now who were the good contractors and why couldn't they concentrate on using them?

Cllr Chada replied that they did come across good contractors but it was also about "weeding" out bad contractors.

DR commented that what was badly needed was an in-house Clerk of Works to monitor the schemes and that this was the only way to get works done to a satisfactory standard.

One resident raised an issue regarding the quality of service he received from the Hampstead District Housing Office and complained that customer service staff were often quite rude when handling enquiries, etc.

As a number of residents present at the meeting supported this view Cllr Raj Chada agreed to look into the issue.

A disabled lady also from Hampstead described a situation which had caused her great inconvenience. A bad-tempered workman had arrived to repair a tap but, instead of the tap being repaired, he caused flood. He also broke the sink in the process and the whole sink had to be replaced. I was also told by a workman that, in order to put a new plug socket in my kitchen - she had one double socket in the entire kitchen - the place would need to be rewired as it had not been done in over 30 years. She received lots of different opinions about the work needed to rectify the problem. In the space of 5 weeks she'd seen something like 14 different people to get the jobs done and the work that  was done was not done to a satisfactory standard. She ended by saying, "They don't bend over backwards to help you at all, they just do what they want to do and they treat you like a second class citizen."

DR announced that he had been handed a resolution to read out at tonight's meeting and asked Petra (CASP Secretary) who had proposed the resolution to read it to the meeting.

There are almost 6500 LBC Street Properties. This represents almost 20% of the Council's entire housing stock. We call on Camden's Councillors and Officers to support LBC street property tenants and residents to secure the same democratic rights as other LBC tenants and residents. We also request that you recognise the very real concerns of Camden's street property tenants and residents and support CASP's request for Camden's Overview and Scrutiny Commission to set up a scrutiny panel to look specifically at problems affecting Camden Council's street properties as was announced at the OSC's January 2005 meeting.

David Rodgers said he wished to second the resolution and asked the meeting for a show of hands in support of the resolution  - themajority of CASP members at the meeting supported the resolution.

Petra (CASP Secretary) said she was one of the people who'd been elected to represent CASP on Camden's Strategic Housing Group and felt that LBC street property tenants and residents had not been given an equal voice. There were numerous examples of this such as the difficulty some LBC tenants and residents experienced when trying to access different services. For example, if tenants and residents living in Camden's street properties experienced a problem around anti-social behaviour in or around their home were LBC street property tenants and residents able to access the same services as those living on Camden's estates?

Cllr Chada responded that there was a clear commitment that no matter what your housing tenure tenants and residents would be treated equally and wished to work with CASP to ensure this.

David Rodgers thanked everybody for attending the meeting.

The meeting closed at 9.10pm.

Post-meeting note: Please also refer to handout prepared by Sue Robertshaw, Assistant Director of Housing (Renewals) in response to questions raised by CASP.