The case to start at the Clerkenwell County Court in May 2010 is of interest for all leaseholders in Tower Hamlets, so I will put it on the Parkview blog.
It is about an accusation that unsound methods have been used to allocate the work on the Boundary Estate. I understand the first chosen firm pulled out of the contract, which was then awarded to the runner-up in the first commissioning process without tendering again.
Leaseholders’ charges vary between £900 and £40.000 for the work and at such sums it is worth trying for a legal remedy to avoid payment because the Leaseholders’ preferred contractor had pulled out from the contract.
This problem arose on the Boundary estate, but could arise anywhere in the borough. How much say should or could leaseholders have when they are supposed to be equally responsible for the payment of costs arising from improvements?
It has always been my view that if you are responsible for the cost than you have to be fully involved in the planning, Council, Tenants and Leaseholders.
Better still the whole determination of a need for repair should be taken with full consultation of all leaseholders, residents and building inspectors to fulfil building and safety regulations, consult about all the options for improvement and to save the most costs.
Panels should be set up as a matter of standard to create a pool of experts and residents that have to be consulted prior to any decision taking place as to whether the improvement is necessary. One cannot argue with improvements that have to be done to comply to Health and Safety Standards but one can argue about cosmetic improvements. Further still the firms tendering for building contracts have to be fully able to enter the race for the contract by it being made widely available. As I do not know too much about those processes, I am not sure how they are at the moment.
the article in the East London Advertiser does not give a lot of details a why the tendering process was not carried out the second time around on the Boundary estate and why the councils argues that they had a right to omit it, so there is little to be commented about from this perspective without actually seeing the papers.