Opinion

HARDLY A FAIR DEAL FOR HEYGATE RESIDENTS

Comments (3)

5 May 2011

I fully support Adrian Glasspool in his ongoing fight to get a fair price for the leasehold interest on his maisonette, (News, April 21).

Had my family circumstances and health been different then I would have stood shoulder to shoulder with him in sticking out for a fair deal. We were frustrated by the council from the start in getting leaseholders’ details together, in order that we could form a group with combined resources that could take the council’s valuers on.

Only very late in the day were we able to obtain a list of our fellow leaseholders. By then many leaseholders were being picked off one by one.

Giving Heygate leaseholders a fair deal has never been on the council’s agenda. It was a case of isolating and frustrating leaseholders and getting the leasehold  interests back at the cheapest cost. An independent chartered surveyor that I engaged was valuating my property at £55,000 more than the council’s surveyors.

The council’s valuers kept using similar comparisons as Mr Glasspool’s in order to beat the price down. They even kept comparing valuations to the Ferrier Estate in Kidbrooke as a bench mark for valueing Heygate properties. The Ferrier Estate was in a dilapidated state and had no end of maintenance problems.

It is also hardly a central London location! Let’s also remember that the Heygate Estate was found to be structurally sound as, reported by an independent survey commissioned by the local housing office in Rodney Road!

The deterioration of the Heygate Estate was by and large a systematic rundown of the estate by the authority. If it hadn't been for the Tenants’ and Residents’ Association stepping in and voluntarily doing a makeover, the communal garden would have remained a dumping ground and dog run.

At one stage the Heygate Tenants’ and Residents’ Association were at an advanced point  of forming a tenant management group because of their frustrations with how the estate was being "mismanaged".

My negotiations with Southwark for a fair price were very stressful, to say the least. Our independent surveyor advised us to accept their revalued offer in December 2008, as the market was taking a dip.

Basically we were told that if we didn't accept the revised offer, a further  revaluation would come in much lower from Southwark. The stress caused by the whole process had a marked effect on both my wife’s and my health.

Is it morally right that we as life long residents of Southwark be treated in this  way? I and many others have had to suffer to pave the way for gentrification of the area. I believe   that   every leaseholder, (both those still resident and those now moved), should be paid further compensation for giving up properties in a prime location. Fair? I think not!
Terry Redpath, ex Heygate resident of 34 years.

---

Social Bookmarks:
del.icio.us Digg Newsvine Reddit Facebook StumbleUpon
Wikipedia: social bookmarking

---

Comments (3)

1. At 04:37 PM on 07 May 2011, T Fuente wrote:
Terry, is it fair that you had cheap rent for years and years when others had to rent privately at double or triple what you paid? Is it fair that you got a massive discount under the right to buy scheme when other people had to save for years and years to get a deposit and then had a mortgage at double or triple yours? I think you will find that being subsidised by me and all the other tax payers for 34 years is a pretty good deal overall and if you had had to inhabit the real world instead of cosy council house world you might not be bleating away quite so much. And yes, i am embittered that access to social housing is only available to a few who get to have a better life because of it, whilst the rest of us pay through the nose whilst subsidising whingers like you.
Report this Comment

2. At 12:34 AM on 14 May 2011, Terry Redpath wrote:
Why not post your comments to the Southwark News letters page?
Report this Comment

3. At 04:55 PM on 15 May 2011, Ari wrote:
That paragon of monetary policy, M Thatcher, changed council house law to give access all instead of the financially distressed. She also privatised council housing stock and stop re-investment. This happened within the last 34 years and should have led to tax reduction ergo people buying council property caused that tax reduction. The cut to council house spending has led to building only during times of profitability through private firms. Private builders are more profitable when there is a limited housing stock. The whole idea of the free market, which the majority have voted for, is to make profit
Report this Comment

Post a Comment

Please note Name and E-mail Address are required.

Name
E-mail Address (not displayed)
Comment (you may use HTML tags for style)
Enter Text Shown in Picture*
Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this article until the comment has been approved.