Resident representatives complained about a lack of routine maintenance, saying that it had previously led to their homes suffering damage.
Sylvan Hall Residents’ Association co-chairs Catherine Eden and Barney Miller spoke out at a Brighton and Hove City Council meeting yesterday (Thursday 18 December).
They told the meeting of the full council at Hove Town Hall that planned and major repairs were currently under way including insulation work, concrete and masonry repairs and roof and window replacement.
Ms Eden said: “We have been informed by council officers that there is no maintenance budget for these works once they have been completed. Only responsive repairs will be carried out.
“This means, for example, that no gutter cleaning will be carried out as part of routine maintenance.
“Residents on the estate find this unacceptable and have noted the damage that lack of routine maintenance has caused to buildings on the estate throughout the years.
“Gutters have been left uncleaned and have eventually fallen off on several blocks on the estate, with ensuing damage to the brickwork and increased risk of dampness in the buildings.
“There have been failings in the responsive repair approach also as, even when gutters have eventually fallen off, they are not necessarily replaced (or) repaired.”
Ms Evans said that the leaseholder handbook stated that the council was responsible for maintaining the structures and outside of each block yet there was no maintenance budget.
Mr Miller listed what was wanted by the Sylvan Hall community including an annual gutter clean and regular maintenance and inspection of windows after several fell out.
He also asked the council to seek advice on the advisability of cavity wall insulation.
Labour councillor Gill Williams, the council’s cabinet member for housing, said that the council had a £27 million budget for major works which included investing in stock condition and other surveys.
Councillor Williams said: “Our planned works budget includes provision for investment in areas such as gutter clearance and service rises as part of our approach to undertake more planning preventative work.
“This is really important. I really agree with you. I am pleased to say we are doing this now and I’m sorry for the administrations in the past that haven’t. But we are endeavouring to do just as you asked.”
She said that the council aimed to ensure that people lived in well-insulated homes – and that this was a long-term objective for the council.
Outside, the meeting, Green councillor Pete West, who, as a Roundhill ward councillor, represents Sylvan Hall, said: “A proactive and planned rather than reactive approach to (housing) maintenance is the only responsible and efficient way forward.
“The alternative causes increased cost through the impact of neglect and wasted management time arguing with complainants about solutions.
“On top of that is the personal misery experienced by the people who are (also) ultimately footing the bill.”
I’m expecting a more proactive response once this backlog is finally dealt with, because I agree, planned works is far better than repairs.
Is always so disappointing to see Cllr Gill Williams roll out the classic Labour lines about inherited problems rather than taking responsibility. The finger pointing and deflection is wearing pretty thin.
It’s been a Labour run council since 2023 and the Regulator for Social Housing made clear in their 2024 judgement about the council’s failings that the majority of the 8,000 repair backlog were issues raised in 2023. It’s been a Labour run council for most of the last 20-30 years, including Labour running the council for 7 years of the last decade.
The key reason the council is taking action now is because of changes in legislation, like the new powers the Regulator for Social Housing has, which make it harder for the council to hide behind inaction and their failings. They got caught out by the judgement in 2024 and are being forced to address the deep-rooted problems. It’s not political will behind changes of process, it’s more regulation and more external scrutiny. It remains the case that the council seldom listens to reports from residents well and they deal with their complaints ineffectively, but they do take note when they are caught out by regulators and ombudsman and judgements and rulings are made against them.
If Cllr Williams was really committed to addressing the issues, she would be vocally challenging the government to fund councils so they have the resources they need to address decades of neglect in the council’s housing stock. She isn’t, and seems to be quite happy with a sticking plaster approach.
You are very keen to blame all this on the Labour Council, despite nearly every Council in the land being caught out by the same legislation, regardless of the political persuasion of the Council. All of which suggests to me that it was not good law in the he first place.
Not every council has had a damning judgement issued to them by the Regulator for Social Housing. Not every council is made up of Labour councillors so doggedly determined to distance themselves from any blame or responsibility in relation to service issues and problems. The way our councillors here constantly deflect blame by talking of ‘inherited’ issues is getting ludicrous.
There does appear to be a problem with openness and transparency at this particular council. I’m sure there are some issues elsewhere too, but the scale of Labour councillors’ spinning the narrative here is off the scale.
I’m sure there are some councillors even within this Labour group who are frustrated with their colleagues game-playing, political spin, and complicity with national Labour austerity – feels like they have been silenced though (although I predict some will be tempted to leave or start speaking out to save their own skin when we get closer to the next local elections).
Why don’t any of these people just get up from their chairs and do something themselves? Get a ladder up to that guttering and take out the leaves, instead of demanding other people dispatch costly maintenance personnel for every little gripe and moan that wouldn’t take two minutes to fix, even if it means asking an able bodied friend if they could pop up the ladder for a handful of seconds?
In fact, I would go so far as to say that constant whining and complaining only consumes the funds set aside for maintenance with petty gripes like overflowing guttering?
I wouldn’t dream of paying appointment fees and assessment fees for some bloke to come round, point at it, tell me what the problem is and then proceed to charge me a minimum 2 hours plus call out fee to grab the leaves and throw them on the floor. Even if I had a broken leg I would simply ask an able bodied visitor if they wouldn’t mind saving me £100 in exchange for a cup of tea.
Constant compoface culture from the older generation who claim they’re the most resilient when they instead seem the most self entitled.
I think you have to appreciate the legal risk. Your mate can go up a ladder, sure. But if they fall and hurt themselves, there’s a potential legal claim there. And that is far more expensive than a trained and insured individual.
It’s not the new post-Grenfell laws that are the problem. Councillors (from any party) who not willing to challenge the government on the need to provide the funding and resources to make the council’s housing safe or for repairs to happen, is a problem.
I wonder if it is actually the will, as you described, or an overestimation on how much influence a ward councillor actually has on central government? I really haven’t seen any evidence that ward councillors, from any party, have any influence beyond the council they are operating in, and honestly – I think I prefer it that way. We have MPs that should in theory be representing on that level instead.
Labour councillors were very vocal about the impact of Tory austerity in 2023-24, it didn’t stop them speaking out then. Zero criticism about the impact of Labour austerity though. It’s double standards in my book and it’s a disservice to the residents councillors serve if the aren’t prepared to call out the government’s funding failings.
You’re treating being vocal as if it’s the same thing as having meaningful leverage; that’s not comparable. “Labour Ward Councillors criticised Tory Austerity” is not evidence that ward councillors, from any party, have any influence beyond the council they are operating in. It’s not a double standard; I’d argue that you’re confusing it with political maturity.
Property maintenance needs qualified trades, the sub contractors need to be qualified trades as well not just a guy with a van and some tools, aim low and that’s where the quality goes. Decent repairs and maintenance are actually cheaper than eternal fixes and bodges. If councils and Housing associations are actually employers then they should be involved in the training of their in house maintenance teams, just like other companies do. This whole issue goes back to the basics, does management have qualified trades ??? or are in there as mates of someone ??? if management doesn’t know the solutions why are they still there after several decades of poor maintenance ?? just my thoughts of course.
I know something that’s been pushed over the last few years within the council are in-house apprenticeships and training opportunities around tradecrafts. Sounds very sensible what you’re saying, Stan.