3 questions about the roofs warranty report

The news about the BEO report about roofs and the 85% overspend is attention grabbing.  A number of people have expressed frustration.  One BJH resident has taken the time to write to the committee, raising three questions for the committee to take up with officialdom:

___

1. Why wasn’t the 85% overspend communicated in advance so that service charge payers could be forewarned to ensure they had funds in place? Should our representatives now agree a level of variance that would require significant variances to the published estimate to be flagged up, just as any business would do?

2. The report suggests that the warranty may have been rendered invalid. If that proves to be the case couldn’t the bill be met by the buildings insurance?  The BJH blog points out the buildings insurer is changing.  Presumably as this issue is ongoing, steps will have been taken to ensure that a claim can still be made if necessary?

3. As drafted, doesn’t the report raise an issue of governance?  The communicated policy was to put in place warranties that would protect service charge payers from potential expenditure during the warranty.  This policy was then not complied with, resulting in residents no longer being protected, but presumably still paying for the warranties through their service charges?

The report implies that the policy wasn’t changed after a discussion at a relevant committee, nor in consultation with residents’ representatives, nor was it ever communicated. It appears that a unilateral act removed the financial protection of the warranties that service charge payers were funding on the clear understanding this was to provide them with additional protection. I’m not a lawyer, but isn’t this akin to mis-selling?

If things stand as they are, aren’t service charge payers in BJH being asked to pay three times over? For the warranty, for the buildings insurance and for the actual repairs themselves? That can’t be right.

Please can the committee get to the bottom of this issue and also do whatever you can to ensure that the relevant lessons are learned around communicating budget variances and governance re policy changes. And also to ensure service charge payers aren’t being asked to pay three times over.