Mutual repairs incentive scheme

What it asks

What the petitioner did first

1. 11 Dec 2012
   Public Petitions Committee

   New Petitions
   2 mentions
2. 19 Feb 2013
   Public Petitions Committee

   Current Petitions
   1 mention
3. 30 Apr 2013
   Public Petitions Committee

   Current Petitions
   1 mention

1. Scotland133 84.2%
2. United Kingdom23 14.6%
3. England2 1.3%

1. Laura Marcantonio 5 Aug 2012
   VAT exemption best way to go. City of Edinburgh Council cannot be trusted to conduct building works anymore either and perhaps their exemption should be removed. There must be serious concern about CECs ability to run a city. We despair but do not want our city to deteriorate further.
2. Anne Hayes 6 Aug 2012
   I feel that this petition should apply to all older tenement buildings as they are an important part of our city architecture.
3. John Miller 6 Aug 2012
   Incentives are certainly required to keep our inner cities more attractive, especially in the wake of the tramway fiasco!
4. Robin Taylor 9 Aug 2012
   Sorry to disagree but I cannot support this. People who own their own house accept that it is their responsibility to pay for the maintenance of their property, why should people who live in tenements not have the same responsibility ? If all tenement property owners paid a regular contribution into a common fund then the cost of upkeep could be sensibly shared amongst the owners.
5. Suzanne Trill 9 Aug 2012
   As one of the few owner-occupierfs in a tenement of 21 flats for the past ten years, I know just how difficult it is to get enough people to agree to get work done (or to agree to hire a factor or have a stair partnership). The current issues around statutory notices makes the situation worse: something really needs to be done to encourage all owners to take their responsibilities seriously
6. Neil Purves 9 Aug 2012
   I wholeheartedly support this petition. I remember that a waitress at Ryan's Bar at the West End in Edinburgh was killed by falling masonry from a gable end
   - so,so sad. Edinburgh trades on its architecture throughout the year so this is another reason to encourage and support preservation. As a property owner common repairs are always a major hurdle and previously I found there was no incentive to organise repairs myself. Instead I found there was a huge advantage of avoiding almost all the VAT by getting a statutory order placed for the work by the council. Owners should have the same treatment both in VAT tearms and the method of repairs to take the load off the Council.
7. Ann Cross 9 Aug 2012
   I used to let out a flat in Edinburgh. 4 of the other owners in the stair were co-operative about repairs, but because the other 2 always refused to pay up, every repair needed to be dealt with through Edinburgh Council. 4 owners ended up paying more because the other 2 owners expected to be subsidised by everyone else.
8. Elaine 10 Aug 2012
   As statutory notices are no longer readily available and stair partnership has disappeared due to lack of funding there is hardly any help now for getting mutual repairs carried out. As some of this is due to the corruption with the previous statutory notice scheme it is a real shame that little has been done to encourage owners to repair their own buildings since. We need a mutual repair but as not all neighbours agree it it is proving impossible to get help, guidance or any incentive to make the repair ourselves
9. Deborah Murphy 13 Aug 2012
   The council, when they do issue a statutory notice
   - issue it to so many properties that organising a repair becomes impossible. This has been identified in the recent fraud unpleasantness, however leaving the decision to the council involves an exorbitant cost and VAT and no help. After the awful incident outside Ryan's bar the council swiftly relinquished all responsibilty onto residents and were even "fixing" that. Edinburgh council are experts in shifting blame and then making money from tenants given very few choices. Perhaps a completely different method should be used one where honesty & overcharging are unacceptable.
10. Kay 14 Aug 2012
    Schemes such as the Edinburgh Stair Partnership should be set up and made *compulsory* so that ongoing repairs are carried out in a timely fashion and flat owners aren't suddenly faced with huge repair bills.
11. James Suddon 17 Aug 2012
    Precautions will have to be taken to ensure people and the government are not ripped-off. This happened in a big way when a scheme of this sort was grossly abused by builders, architects and many others with shoddy workmanship to boot. The scheme took place approximately 20 years ago and the costs were that the grant was 90% to 10% for the owners. Despite this the cost of the 10% to owners often ran into thousands and a lot of the work done then has not lasted.
    We should beware of giving further power to people employed by the councils and it may be that the watchdogs for the scheme would be [PROFANITY:employed] by the Scottish Government, but this too would have its dangers.
    Jim
12. Lesley 18 Aug 2012
    Support from the Council to help tenement property owners share their contact details
    - in particular where a large number of flats are rented
    - would be useful in encouraging owners to be more proactive in maintaining properties. Schemes such as the Edinburgh Stair Partnership should definitely be encouraged.
13. Jill 19 Aug 2012
    This is a very timely request, particularly in an era when councils have been found to be lacking with regard to the legality of the 'statutory' work they endorse, which is often to the financial benefit of the contractors they use...
14. Malcolm 20 Aug 2012
    "No encouragement to organise repairs themselves"? Is the fact that a substantial portion of your net worth is invested in the building not incentive enough? Why should you expect a subsidy from those of us who pay taxes but do not own property?
15. Florance Kennedy 20 Aug 2012
    Malcolm's point on 20 August, and Robin Taylor's earlier are valid. However, they do not address the fact that some owners do not fulfil their responsibilities and this causes immense problems which responsible owners cannot rectify. I think incentives are a fair swop for being able to walk down the street safe from deadly falls of masonry, and they would also benefit the tenants of some landlords who don't always look after their properties properly.
16. Marcello Mega 22 Aug 2012
    A few years ago, a statutory notice was served on the tenement block in Edinburgh East of someone close to me. The owners had been unable to secure the commitment of one owner who rented out his flat. He used a very common British surname, that clearly was not his own, and he instructed his tenants not to reveal his true name and address to the other residents and flat owners. Despite this obstruction, they managed to track him down and attempted to persuade him to look after his property and his own interests, He refused, the notice was served and the owners found themselves facing a bill of £14,000 each. Because one of the owners, who let his property out, was well-connected, he managed to persuade the relevant person in the council department involved to give the owners a short period to organise the repairs themselves. The unhelpful owner was suddenly just as keen as everyone else to see what could be done to avoid paying £14,000 and probably have a rotten job done. Agreements were soon reached, a clerk of works was appointed to oversee and check the calibre of the work (just as well as he unearthed a few major faults at the end and had them rectified) and the job was done to a decent standard at a cost of £4,000 per flat, plus a small sum to the council to cover admin costs. The point of this is to illustrate the sort of problems owners can experience when just one of their number will not co-operate, and the fact that any job organised by the council is pretty much guaranteed to invole some sort of kick-back at our expense. How else can a difference of £10,000 per flat be explained? Our wee country is far more corrupt than most would like to think.
    Finally, there is clearly a need for money to be found from the public purse to help maintain our magnificent Victorian and Georgian buildings, which are responsible for the stunning good looks of our capital city. We cannot afford, in any sense, to let them crumble.
17. chris paterson 23 Aug 2012
    in addition the issue of acceptaing responsibility needs to be understood by home owners. too many ignore and obviously it is usually the parties most affected organise the work ie top floor flats.
    mixed use blocks need serious discussion as we use a historic % calculation based on rateable values set 20 odd years ago. many residential owners have a 1 or 2% liability totally unrealistic to their area liability or current notional rateable value should residential properties be revalued now. whilst you may moan that it will add additional costs to home owners it is no different to current position with home owners ignoring their responsibility but you often have the case of a retailer rejecting repairs becaue they can have up to 80% liability so again no incentive to get work done. clearly not a vote winner but that is the reality of mixed buildings and needs like other areas looked into.
18. Bruce Paul 4 Sep 2012
    Considering the ongoing council statutary notice repairs scandal with estimates for work done to tenament flats doubling in price, i would suggest that VAT is reduced or zero so that owners can oversee their own repairs.
19. Bridget Harris 2 Oct 2012
    This is an important issue long overdue for sorting out