Members’ Update Email 25th Feb 2021

CONTENTS new website – legal advice – finding other barnsbury leaseholders – ballot result date – connecting with poiticians – connecting with leaseholders on other estates – residents charter – more info on what a “no” vote means – fact checking the anonymous flyer – source’s role in the consultation – home loss & disturbance payments on buy-back – avoiding group emails – who’s my rep?

NEW WEBSITE First and foremost, we have a group website, thanks to one of our Reps: https://barnsburyleaseholders.org This will be the simplest place to direct leaseholders to for information. Also, Leaseholders who wish to join us can submit their info on the website, so we hope it helps build our membership.The website is intentionally simple in structure and our focus will be on providing factual information rather than opinion. The external links section gives pointers to helpful organisations for leaseholders of all persuasions. In the spirit of impartiality, we are not intending to link to social media channels, but will add further content as we go along. The website will work along with our new email address – barnsburyleaseholders@gmail.com – and our membership list which is now being used to send communications like this. We can now direct emails to groups of specific categories of leaseholders which will really help reduce email overload.

LEGAL ADVICE An initial, no charge conversation has been booked with Sarah Finch from Hamlins who is a specialist housing solicitor, to find out if/what support she could provide and what the cost implications could be should we wish to collectively engage legal support. Summary on what we find out to follow next week.

FINDING OTHER BARNSBURY LEASEHOLDERS The bigger this group is, the more affordable any shared costs for legal advice will be – so please do all you can to encourage any leaseholders you know, who have not yet joined us, to join us, either on the website or by emailing us onbarnsburyleaseholders@gmail.comSo far, Newlon has not proactively supported Leaseholders’ efforts to find each other. However, Source has been helpful. Here is a summary of our attempts to connect to all leaseholders:140 Leaseholders in total. New Barnsbury = 73, 38 resident leaseholders (RLs), 35 non-resident leaseholders (NRLs). Old Barnsbury = 67, 34 RLs, 33 NRLs.In January 2021, at our request, Source made contact via post to resident and non-resident leaseholders to make them aware of our group. Source has advised that the flyer was posted to all Leaseholders (bar those all already connected with us) including 67 NRLs. The remaining 13 were either abroad, or have not provided consent to Newlon for their address to be shared with Source. For these 13, flyers were posted to their Barnsbury estate flats with a message to ‘please forward’. Note: Corporate property leaseholders (of which there are 5) have not responded and c.12 leaseholders have specifically requested Source not to pass their details on to our leaseholder group.In addition, Source has confirmed that they deliver/post their general newsletters and leaflets to every single property on the estate including those with private tenants of NRLs. Source is contracted to independently advise private tenants as well as Newlon tenants and leaseholders, so has a duty to make them aware of proposals.Source also sent texts in January to the 41 leaseholders whose mobile phone numbers they hold. Landline numbers were not contacted. At the moment, Source says they can’t make calls to landlines, but has offered, should we feel this is a good idea, to do a second posting of an invitation to join us. Perhaps we should consider this following the ballot result. Another action on our to do list is to contact Newlon to double check the addresses they use for correspondence to NRLs so this is clear to all.As above, in the meantime, please do all you can to encourage any leaseholders who have not yet joined our group to join us through our new website link. We may consider posters or a leaflet drop ourselves in the future too. Any other ideas to encourage membership growth are really welcome. This is especially important if we wish to keep to a minimum any collective legal costs.

BALLOT RESULT DATE The Offer Document did not include the date the ballot result will be published. Source advises that this must be within 7 days of the ballot closing, so the result can be expected on or before 27th March 2021.

CONNECTING WITH POLITICIANS We have made contact with our 3 local councillors, plus our local MP, to let them know of our group’s existence. Cllr Rowena Champion and Emily Thornberry MP have both acknowledged our emails.

CONNECTING WITH LEASEHOLDERS ON OTHER ESTATES Contact has been made with the resident leaseholder chair of Kings Crescent Tenants and Residents Association (N4, Hackney) and we have established some similarities and some differences between their re-development situation and ours. They have some valuable insights into how large estate projects work, and what questions we need to ask. Kings Crescent also worked with Source and have experience of how best to benefit from their help. The Kings Crescent residents formed as an informal group 18 months ago, and are now a formal residents association so they can advise us on how to move forward as a sustainable voice for leaseholders. For more info, see https://kingscrescent.org

RESIDENTS CHARTER We raised our concern to Source that the significance of the Residents Charter was underplayed in relation to the Offer Letter (itself lacking in relevant detail). Additionally, we feel that leaseholders have not been well represented in forming the charter to date. If there is a ‘Yes’ vote, it will be vital that we are properly represented, to shape the charter in future. Source will support in ensuring this happens. There has been confusion about the role the draft Charter plays in relation to the ballot and we understand from Source that residents should be voting on the contents of the Offer Document alone. A lot of detailed points on the Charter continue to be raised with Source, and we have their responses to date if anyone would like them. However, nothing in the Charter is set in stone at this point, since it is a non-binding draft. Note: Newlon’s FAQs and the Residents Charter are contradictory with reference to establishing leaseholder residency date post-ballot. Source has confirmed that the date in the FAQs (planning application submission) is the most up to date and will be reflected in the next draft of the Charter.

MORE INFO ON WHAT A “NO” VOTE MEANS Symon from Newlon has responded to this query, raised by one of the group this week, as follows: Q. We would like to know more about what happens should there be a no vote. You intimated that Newlon would be obliged to make improvements and that the cost would be passed onto Leaseholders.I know that there is government legislation that is being looked at but is not yet law so can you give us some indication of what you anticipate the works would be should there be a no vote and what costs could be passed on and how this is offset against the money accrued in the sinking fund? A. As we have indicated throughout the workshops and in the offer document, a ‘No Vote’ means business as usual in terms of the provision and repairs and maintenance., in the first instance.The costs of remedial work, especially to New Barnsbury will be very considerable and if there are no funds to cross subsidise these, such as would be the case in the proposals for the transformation exercise, then a good portion of the costs will fall to leaseholders in line with what is set out in leases. Leaseholders should expect bills of many tens of £000’s, one suspects.It cannot be stated with complete accuracy what these costs will be at present because there is new legislation going through Parliament relating to building and fire safety, and a new Housing White paper soon to become a bill, as well as a requirement to decarbonise stock that will all impact on the costs to bring current properties up to new regulatory standards.We recognise that these costs will be difficult for leaseholders to bear. The most elegant solution to this is the transformation proposals set out in the Offer Document recently sent to you. This is because leaseholders on New Barnsbury will not be required to meet any of the costs associated with the transformation and the works will ensure that properties on the estate meet all new and forthcoming regulatory standards, including decarbonisation as well. This will have a positive knock on effect to service charges as well.I am sorry I could give you a precise figure as to the costs that will fall to leaseholders on New Barnsbury but hope you understand why this is not possible, currently.

FACT-CHECKING THE ANONYMOUS FLYER The recent unauthored communication dropping through letterboxes suggesting a delay to the ballot to allow for more face-to-face consultation has been passed on to Source for fact checking. We await a response.

SOURCE’S ROLE IN THE CONSULTATION Another group member raised a query about this. Question and response as follows: Q. Who pays Source? Do they have a conflict of interest? Are they at all dependent on Newlon or other housing assocs for contracts? If so, how can they give unbiased advice to us? A. Regarding your earlier query about conflict of interest : Although Newlon, in common with all  landlords proposing regeneration, pay the costs of independent advice we and our competitors are bound by good practice  initially established in 2002 by  the government and we are very clear that we do not promote regeneration or any other landlord message or indeed the message of any pressure group of residents. We have a long track record in this field and if we were not impartial then we would not get any work, it would be very poor business sense. We understand your concern but our range of contracts are such that we do not depend on any one contract to stay in business. Very often we work only up until ballot and either there is a no vote or we decide we do not have the capacity to work into implementation. Occasionally residents decide they want a change of advisor, that’s the sector we are in.We were appointed by a panel of residents for Barnsbury and continue to act in good faith to ensure that all tenants and leaseholders understand the proposals. We do understand that the role is hard to separate out from that of a leaseholder case worker (which we are not).

(New Barnsbury) HOME LOSS AND DISTURBANCE PAYMENTS ON BUY-BACKSource has stated that under Compulsory Purchase, the Home Loss Act (1973) sets legal minimum Home Loss Premiums to be paid to all leaseholders. As suggested in Newlon’s Offer Document (page 19) the legislation specifies that for NRLs it is a payment of an additional 7.5% of the market value of the property. For resident LHs it is 10%. Newlon cannot reduce these premiums. But – Newlon’s proposed buyback system would not be via Compulsory Purchase, rather a private agreement with each individual leaseholder to surrender their lease. So we asked Source whether we had grounds to challenge the percentage premiums if we felt they were unfair. Source has suggested that this is possible for individuals via a tribunal, but this is likely to be expensive and lengthy, and would likely end up with a compulsory purchase with the original legal minimum premium anyway. We will check with other sources of advice whether this is true.However, Source said that another area that is easier to potentially challenge is Disturbance Payments – reasonable compensation for the costs of having to move/purchase another property. The offer document gives almost no commitment about this, so Source suggests that it could potentially be negotiated to include all sorts of costs, including (for example) lost rental income due to disruption. We will be seeking more advice on this too.

AVOIDING GROUP EMAILS We’re finding it difficult to keep on top of the large volume of information from “reply all” group emails. For this update we think we’ve managed to cover the key queries and answers from Source and Newlon over the past week, but it’s not something we can continue to do without missing things. For this reason, we kindly suggest that leaseholders raise queries individually with Source, Newlon etc, and send copies of the queries raised and the responses received to our  barnsburyleaseholders@gmail.com  address. This will ensure that relevant information can be shared on future updates more easily