October 2005
20th October 05
Below you will find the decision made by the LVT Tribunal on the application made for the Resident Association Recognition.
Anyone wishing to discuss matters further may contact any RVRA Team Member.
SOUTHERN RENT ASSESSMENT PANEL
In the matter of section 29 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 (as amended)
And in the matter of Village Residents’ Association. Case Number 147/2/453.
Upon the application of Village Residents’ Association Hearing: - 17th October 2005-10-19
Appearances:
Mrs L Lockyer of Messrs Biscoes for Village Residents’ Association
Mr N Faulkner FRICS of Labyrinth Properties Limited (the managers of The Village) for Rowner Estates Limited, the landlord
Mr G Fernie in person
Decision Issued: 18th October 2005
Committee
Mr R P Long LLB
1. This was an application by the members of Village Residents’ Association (“VRA”) for a certificate of recognition of that Association from the Panel pursuant to section 29 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 (as amended) (“the Act”). For the reasons stated below, the application stands adjourned until the first convenient day after 17th April 2006. Such an application may be determined by a member of the Panel who has been appointed by the Lord Chancellor under the Rent Act 1977, and I confirmed at the outset that I have been so appointed.
2. It was established at the outset, after the usual introductions, that Mr Fernie had not seen the bundle of documents delivered by Mrs Lockyer to the Panel on the morning of the hearing, and that Mr Faulkner had seen it only a quarter of an hour beforehand. For some reason, Mrs Lockyer had not seen a copy of the bundle that Mr Fernie had delivered to the Panel at an earlier date, although Mr Faulkner had a copy of them. There followed a twenty minute period to allow the parties to become familiar with these documents, after which they expressed themselves ready to proceed.
3. I indicated at the start of the hearing proper that the decided cases in such matters as these indicated that a certificate of recognition might be granted in cases where the Panel was satisfied that VRA was properly and democratically formed, that membership was available to all qualifying tenants. For the latter purpose a membership of 60% or thereabouts had frequently been treated as the applicable criterion, and was the figure recommended by the Federation of Private Residential Landlords, a copy of which Mr Faulkner had available and provided to Mrs Lockyer. The Panel was unlikely to grant a certificate of recognition to more than one such association on any given estate.
4. Mr Faulkner informed me that all of the 301 flats at The Village are let on long leases. Some are occupied by the leaseholders, and others are let by them to tenants. The landlord had not been asked to recognise VRA.
5. Mrs Lockyer told me that VRA had approximately 110 members. Membership was available to long leaseholders and to their tenants. Its rules had been amended since those with the original application had been provided in accordance with the revised version at page 18 of her bundle. The effect of the change was that although both a long leaseholder and his tenant at a given flat might be members there would be only one vote per flat. That vote was exercised by the person responsible for paying the service charge. In practice this was the long leaseholder, except where the burden of payment was expressly placed upon a tenant by the tenancy agreement. In this connection it is to be noted that a “qualifying tenant” for the purpose of the Act is a person responsible for paying the service charge, but that the Act provides that an association may be an association of such qualifying tenants “with or without other tenants”. Perhaps fifty of the flats are presently unoccupied.
6. VRA had yet to hold its AGM. It had been awaiting the decision of the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal in matters before it. To date some eighty people had signed up as members and had paid their subscriptions. Mr Burt added that a number of people were asking if VRA had a certificate of recognition before doing so. There were no accounts for the present year. Some accounts had been prepared and audited by an accountant last year, but neither Mrs Lockyer nor Mr Burt had a copy with them.
7. In addition to the Association, there are two other organisations representing residents at The Village. These are Village Residents Steering Group (“VRSG”) and Rowner Village Residents Association (“RVRA”). RVRA is a group led by Mr Fernie having, from a list with his bundle, either members or what are described as “associates” representing nine other flats. Mr Fernie was formerly associated with VRA and his group appears from the information that was given to me to be a sort of breakaway group that publishes a website and enters into some correspondence with the managers.
8. VRSG was described to me as being a sub committee of VRA. Mrs Lockyer had stated in a letter to Mr Faulkner of 12 February 2004, a copy of which Mr Faulkner showed me at the hearing, that VRA and VRSG were now merged. It consists of some members of VRA who subscribe to a “fighting fund” relating to the disputes about management and service charges that have engulfed The Village for a number of years. It appeared from the comments of residents at the hearing that those who paid a subscription took the view that those who did not (whether from choice or from lack of ability to pay) should not be party to the benefits derived from their subscriptions. Mr Burt accepted that to that extent the organisations were separate.
9. I made a note in these terms that I read to the parties:
“[There is} some confusion as to whether VRA members are eligible to attend VRSG meetings, as VRSG members subscribe to a fighting fund and others may not. However VRSG is described as a sub committee of VRA although the rules do not refer to it”.
The parties agreed that this represented a fair summary of the evidence upon the point.
10. I raised with Mrs Lockyer a number of concerns about the constitution of VRA. In the order in which they appear in that document, and by reference to the paragraph numbers there, they were:
a. The question of eligibility for membership (3a). Mrs Lockyer answered this in the terms of the amendment referred to in paragraph 5 above, which also deals with the limitation of one vote to each flat.
b. There was a conflict between the provisions of clause 4(b) (nominations for election from the floor of an AGM) and clause 4(e) (seven days advance notice of nomination).
c. If committee members have to be re-elected each year (4(b)) then there seemed to be no useful purpose for 4(d) (a committee member may stand down at an AGM). The issue of re-election might usefully be clarified.
d. There was no provision for a committee member co-opted under paragraph 5(a) to have their co-option ratified at a subsequent AGM, and paragraph 3(a) may need amendment conclusively to avoid any possible inconsistency between its provisions and those of paragraph 5(a).
e. There was no correlation between the description of members of the committee at paragraph 4(A) and the apparent requirement that there should be a committee member from each block at paragraph 11. Mrs Lockyer said that, in practice, if a members was not elected from a block a member from another block would be asked to represent the otherwise unrepresented block in the terms expressed in paragraph 11, but it may be appropriate to give formal effect to that arrangement.
f. It might be helpful for paragraph 6(e) to refer to a twenty one day notice for a general meeting. Although Mrs Lockyer says that that period of notice is usually given, a longer period may help a little in trying to get as many residents as possible to attend what I understand is usually a rather sparsely attended gathering.
g. Paragraph 10 refers to an audit of the accounts. There appeared to be no reference to the accounting period (although I was told that this was usually from 1 January to 31 December each year). Paragraph 10 may need amendment to show that two members of the association (not being members of the committee) be appointed in every year to audit those accounts.
Mrs Lockyer accepted that the Committee of VRA might usefully look at the possible amendments.
11. I indicated that I could not presently give a certificate of recognition to VRA for three primary reasons, despite the fact that it was represented to me that if I did not there would be no formally recognised tenants’ body at the Village. Those reasons are:
a. That I did not consider that the present membership of VRA was sufficiently representative of all of the long leaseholders or tenants at The Village. If all of the possible members who pay their subscription of £5 meet that subscription, then at the applicants’ best estimate there will be 110 members. That is some 35% of the number of flats, even assuming that all of the members represent a different flat. The usually accepted criterion in this respect is a figure of 60%, and whilst there may be a little latitude around that figure in appropriate circumstances, the present membership of VRA falls very short of the criterion on any measure.
b. That the problems presented by the constitution were such that it could not presently safely be said that it guaranteed democratic representation and accountability, although some appropriate amendment may remedy that position.
c. The relationship between VRA and VRSG was confused. It appeared that VRA and VRSG members may quite easily from time to time have divergent objectives. Until that potential contradiction was resolved it could not objectively be said that VRA was speaking with only one voice.
12. Bearing in mind the need to have a single residents’ organisation if at all possible at The Village to help in the resolution of the many problems of the estate I said that I might either dismiss the application, or, if the parties were so minded adjourn the matter for a little while to enable the issues described in the preceding paragraph to be addressed, and invited representation upon the point. The parties were unanimously in favour of an adjournment of six months to enable them to address the issues mentioned above and to seek to create a united front in addressing the wider problems mentioned. Councillor Martin Davies, who was present as an observer who has had involvement with these matters said that he was certain that a united group was essential, and asked that there be a “cease fire” between those residents amongst whom there has been animosity in order to enable this to happen. I wholeheartedly echo those sentiments.
13. The matter is accordingly adjourned until the first convenient day after 17th April 2006. If the parties are able to bring about the united front that they seek to achieve in such a way as to satisfy the landlord and the Federation of Private Residential Landlords recognition guidelines in such a way as to enable the landlord to grant recognition in the meantime then, of course, a further hearing will not be necessary.
Robert Long
A member of the Panel appointed By the Lord Chancellor under the Rent Act 1977 17th October 05
27th October 05
RVRA have written to the BBC again, this time with a complaint regarding the Panorama documentary which was shown on Sunday 23rd October 05.
The complaint was as follows:
"We are horrified that the BBC made such a detrimental programme based where we live with none of the participants of the programme actually living on the estate.
The participants all live in Portsmouth Housing Association homes, off the estate. The estate featured is a privately owned estate.
The individuals making the programme were well aware of this as we had spoken with them on one occasion explaining our displeasure of featuring the estate where none of the participants lived.
This is not the first time the BBC have made a detrimental programme featuring this estate. The Inside Out programme made in 2002 which featured twice on the BBC left a terrible effect on house prices in the area and thanks again to the BBC the effect is highly likely to strike again.
We would recommend that next time BBC wish to make these programmes, your researchers actually research where the participants live.
We would also like to point out that if your researchers had actually carried out the job properly, they would have found that the drug problem in Rowner is actually far lower than in Alverstoke and Lee On Solent. These statistics were prepared by Hampshire Constabulary.
The other youngsters featured in this film continue to harass the residents of Rowner and are not as squeaky clean as made out.
I am of the opinion that the BBC make a public apology to the people who actually live on the featured estate."
We have since received a reply, which is as follows:
"The participants in the film do live in Social Housing accommodation in the Southern Part of the Estate. However, as I'm sure you're well aware the precinct area is generally regarded as the heart of the Estate (Timeout, Rowner Access Point, Pharmacy, Shop all being located there).
The local Surestart, Community Centre and Junior school all also a stone's throw from the precinct - many residents from the southern part of the Estate use these facilities. Our featured character makes that point early on in the film ("this is the heart of Rowner"). We were given permission to film in the public areas of the precinct, and unless confined to filming in peoples houses it was right to shoot in the public areas at the centre of the estate.
We spoke to many of the residents (over 15) who live in the precinct flats and they were also happy for us to film there. We obviously couldn't consult everyone.
There are several shots that show where the family lives.
Information from the Local Care Trust confirmed the significant drug problem on the Estate, as did a local pharmacist and GP. No comparisons were made with Lee-on-Solent and Alverstoke with regards to drug-taking.
The programme aimed to highlight the difficulties and insecurity of living on low income, especially as that affects bringing up a child.
It is not our place to comment on the choices made by our characters, but we will put your concerns and suggestions to them.
Thanks for your concern and interest"
If anyone would like to comment on the programme or the complaint, please contact RVRA in the usual manner and your comments will be passed on to Labyrinth Properties Ltd as we have made them aware of our complaint and the response we received. Alternatively, we would quite happily publish your complaint on this web site.
.
