LEASEHOLDERS are facing bills of up to £30,000 for repairs to their properties despite a law aiming to cap the amount councils can charge leaseholders for repairs to their homes reports the Local Democracy Reporters Service.

Janet Jackman is one of several leaseholders who have been handed large bills for major works repairs to roofing and cladding on housing in Five Acres in Harlow.

The 64-year-old, married to Keith, has already paid around £17,000 for repairs done to a property she owns as a Harlow Council leaseholder, in Hornbeams.

But she says the latest demand from the council has left her “depressed”. Council tenants do not have to pay.

Under a law brought in in 2014, authorities are no longer be able to levy huge bills for future government funded repair work on people who simply have little or no hope of meeting their demands. Harlow Council says there is no grants or government funding available for the work.

Mrs Jackman said: “I could cry. Every day I wake up and feel depressed. I don’t feel right. I feel my every day living is affected because I keep thinking ‘oh my god’.

“If I want to buy a new top I think better not. I feel my whole life has changed for it. £30,000 is a devastating amount.”

Addressing Harlow Council cabinet on Thursday night (March 24) she asked how the bills might be reduced and why the council had let the condition of the housing get to such a poor state.

She said: “Can the works not be done over a long period so we haven’t got £30,000 bill to pay at once? If the council maintained their buildings, we wouldn’t have such a high bill. Maybe then the cost of the preliminary would not be so costly and bring our bill down.”

Cliff Phillips, 73, who lives in Five Acres, is also facing bills for around £30,000. He wants the tenders resubmitted to ensure competitive amounts are being received by the council.

He said: “I could borrow the money but it has to be paid back. I am not in a position to borrow any more money. The money I receive is only just enough to get by on. This is giving me sleepless nights. I don’t need this. I’ve recently had a major heart operation and I don’t need this over my head.”

Councillor Simon Carter, cabinet member for housing, admitted to the council that maintenance has fallen back but that the are a number of ways in which payments can be eased.

He said: “I understand and appreciate that major works can be a financial burden to Leaseholders, and you have been provided with detailed answers to these questions. I and my Housing colleagues will continue to respond to any further questions you may have with information and support in addition to the further consultation that will occur after the awarding of the contract.

“The council, as the landlord for the block, is responsible for keeping the maintenance to an acceptable standard with an obligation to ensure the structure and fabric are kept in good order. The works listed for these blocks have been identified as required in order to meet these obligations to ensure its building components remain safe and serviceable.

“The project also improves the energy efficiency and reduces ongoing maintenance costs. It is, however, understood by their very nature these works can be disruptive. Every effort has been taken to minimise disruption by packing these works together.

“Evidence suggests this approach is more cost effective, lowering the potential costs to Leaseholders such as only one use of scaffolding, as outlined in their lease. Consultation with those Leaseholders within the block has and is being undertaken through the formal processes.

“Leaseholders are invited at various stages of the consultation process to express their views in an environment of openness and transparency, to ensure works are fair and reasonable.”

He added: “All tenders are appropriately evaluated, carrying out intensive checks to ensure that tenders meet the council’s requirements which include quality and insurances, as well as financial and economic standing.”

Local Government Secretary Eric Pickles vowed to introduce a cap on repairs after a 93-year-old constituent was landed with a £50,000 bill by her local authority for roof repairs.

Newham Council based its fee on a guess because it had not conducted a proper survey on the first-floor flat. It later emerged the roof would have lasted another 40 years and the work was unnecessary.

The family of Florence Bourne say she “died of shame” because she had never been in debt in her life and simply could not afford to pay the bill for work on her Brentwood home.

Mr Pickles ordered officials at the Department for Communities and Local Government to review legislation governing council house repairs after Florence’s plight was brought to his attention.

Now new directions are being issued to councils and housing associations which will force them to limit the amount they can charge for future major repair, maintenance, or improvement works when they are wholly or partly funded by the government.

Outside London the maximum level will be levied at £10,000 in any 5 year period, with a cap of £15,000 for the capital.

Authorities will bear the outstanding costs of work themselves.

Harlow Council says there are no grants or government funding for these works, which are paid for from the council’s ring-fenced housing revenue account.

Cllr Carter said: “Unfortunately, there are no grants or government funding for these works, which are paid for from the Council’s ring-fenced Housing Revenue Account. However, the council continues to make representations to help support the costs associated with increased building safety.”

Mr Pickles at the time of the decision in 2014: “I was appalled at Florence’s treatment and was determined that no other leaseholder should ever have to endure the stress and hardship she experienced in the final weeks of her life.

“Florence served her country as a WAAF in the Second World War, raised a loving family and believed in paying her way, so to be faced with this excessive fee was more than she could stand.

“Charging excessive amounts for council house repairs not only targets some of the most vulnerable people in society, it can amount to a failure in a local authority’s duty of care.”