Century House Residents' Association

Introduction/Background

Century House is located at 245 Streatham High Road, London SW16 6ER. It was built in 1938 to be the headquarters of jewellery firm James Walker and then converted into 33 residential flats in the late 1980s.

Century House Residents' Association was formed (I think, I'll have to check) in March 1992. Currently 22 of 33 leaseholders are members. The Association has formal recognition, pursuant to Section 29, Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 as amended.

We formed after major works were proposed by the then agents, UK Property Managers (UKPM), in early 1992. The works, which included a re-roof and repair of the High Road facing window facade, were at a projected cost, (inclusive of fees and VAT) of £85,000. We asked a surveyor to report on the proposal and on the state of the block. Here are some of the comments of Robin Gorbold, FRICS:

‘There appears to be an over specification in the thickness of the asphalt to the roof which calls for 20mm thickness to each coat totalling 40mm, laid in accordance with a British Standard 116, which I don’t recognise in this context... (Note BS 116 refers to radio communications, now withdrawn)... normally asphalt is laid in two coats totalling an overall thickness of 20 to 22 mm... by increasing the thickness the weight on the roof is increased... and this may cause damage to the existing roof.’
‘The contactor is asked to choose between two methods of providing falls to the roof, the second of which calls for a levelling agent used where a flat surface is required, not falls.’
‘The specification for repairs to the windows of the common parts is inadequate in that there is no requirement for a rust inhibitor to be used prior to the red oxide primer... There is a request for burning off defective and perishing paintwork to metal windows. The problem with this is that in order to burn paint off metal windows it is necessary to raise the temperature to a considerable degree which has a tendency to distort the windows and break the glass.’
‘The specification is inadequate in many areas and wrong in other areas and would be a dangerous document to use for the purpose of obtaining fixed estimates.’
‘The specification calls for scaffolding only “to the front and rear elevations...” which is rather vague and makes the [£24,000] estimate [for scaffolding] even more excessive.’
‘I have attempted to estimate the cost of the work described in the specification excluding the scaffold. The total comes to between £22,000 and £26,000 plus VAT’. [We were being asked to pay £65,000 including scaffold costs but before the addition of fees and VAT.]

Mr. Gorbold suggested a non-asphalt alternative for the re-roof which would be less expensive and (so long as it was applied according to the manufacturer’s instruction) guaranteed for 15 years.

UK Property Managers did not take kindly to our criticism and suggestions and other serious problems arose. Almost 10 years later, works have still to be carried out and are now desperately needed. The block is becoming dilapidated. The roof and walls are deteriorating. Frames in a large window façade (140 panes of glass) which faces Streatham High Road are badly rusted, putting pressure on panes which crack and break. Some flats suffer from damp and some have window problems.

Two more specifications have been written and tenders obtained but leaseholders have had reason to object to both sets of specification/tenders. The lowest estimate for the latest specification (April 1999) was more than £250,000 (inclusive of fees and VAT).

There are a host of other problems – the reasonableness of the cost of many service charges items is in dispute; telecom base stations have been installed at the block without consultation leading to concern about health ill-affects (our situation was reported on in The Evening Standard newspaper and later on Carlton Television’s The Property Show) with no contribution made to the service charge on behalf of the telecom companies from whom we understand substantial rental income is derived; forfeiture notices were served on some leaseholders without warning and with the allegation of service charge arrears although the agents had been notified that many charges were considered unreasonable; there is an absence of general management and matters brought to the attention of the agents are often not dealt with satisfactorily or dealt with at all; most letters we have written remain unanswered; legal advice which the agents purport to have received on several matters is at variance to that which we have received.

Longmint Limited have owned the freehold of our block (initially through Smithgold, a wholly-owned subsidiary, and now directly) since April 1998. Longmint Management, who trade as "Cambridge Property Services", are managers. Last we knew, Lucy Cummings, Neil Bellis and Juliet Bellis owned Longmint and Lucy Cummings and Neil Bellis owned Longmint Management. Many of the problems referred to have arisen or, we feel, been exacerbated under the current management, others date from earlier.

As a consequence of the problems at Century House, flat valuations are low and it difficult to sell, especially so when the agents insist that prospective vendors pay off alleged arrears (including for outdated external and internal works demands and for service charges in dispute). Recently two two-bedroom flats were valued at about £85,000 – little more that what they cost when the block was converted 13 years ago. By comparison, two-bedroom flats in a neighbouring road which used to sell for similar amounts now fetch around £130,000.

We are now preparing an application to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) for the appointment of new managers. Please see the News page for more information.

Below are links to illustrative documents which concern some of the main issues (click on the link to fetch the document):

Building Works

Section 20 notice, 6 April 1999

CHRA's observations on the notice – We’re very keen for the works to go ahead but make a number of points, key of which concern the increased cost of works, whether there should be a contribution on behalf of the Orange for their base station and protection of monies paid for the work, including provision for repayment if the works are not carried out

CPS's response to CHRA's observations - 1 – Response to various points from CPS. The key points are not answered to our satisfaction. CPS take the opportunity to announce that a second Telecom company, Dolphin, will be installing a base station, stating “Operators of mobile networks have statutory rights to erect aerials as necessary for their use. Therefore [a Telecom company] could, if the freeholder [did] not consent, [go] to Court to ensure that their aerial was erected.” This is quite untrue.

CPS's response to CHRA's observations - 2 – Response to various other points from Haywards, surveyors for the works.

Telecom Masts

CHRA's Constitution and Membership Application Form