A story of injustice, discrimination against leaseholders, and a broken housing system
By Gill Perceval
2008 and Mum was living in a house in Langley. She was active, sociable and hands-on in helping others. After losing her husband and suffering some health issues, she became aware of Extra Care Developments which were to be built as a joint venture between Hanover Housing and Slough Borough Council.
On exploring the criteria and eligibility she decided that was her next destination. She would sell the family home that she was now struggling to manage and move into a more suitable flat in Wexham.
The maximum she would be allowed to own under the scheme was 75% of the property. She was aware that service charges would be payable for communal facilities and services. It all looked very reasonable and Mum was keen to secure a purchase.
Jean on her 90th birthday celebration. Image courtesy of Jean’s family.
Soon after Mum had made her decision and her house was on the market, she heard that the number of units to be allocated for shared ownership was to be reduced to 10 with an undertaking by Slough Borough Council (SBC) and Hanover Housing to increase the number back up to 25, an undertaking that was never followed through.
At this stage Mum was actually concerned that she may not get one of the flats. She wrote to both SBC and Hanover Housing expressing her disappointment and concern but was reassured by their responses.
What we didn’t consider at this stage was the impact on service charges that this reduction in leaseholders would have on future amounts payable.
With Shared Ownership you own a percentage of the property but pay 100% of charges apportioned according to the number of tenants. Certain items within the service charges are purely down to the leaseholders, such as in buildings insurance. The reduction in the number of homes allocated for shared ownership however would mean that the costs of such services would split across 10 properties instead of 25, considerably increasing the charge per property.
Anyway, Mum secured No 11, made it her home with Sammy the parrot and began a new episode on her life’s journey.
New Episode – Happy Times
Not one to sit still for long and having an active mind, Mum decided she would run the shop at the development, sort out outings, organise entertainment and bingo and generally get involved where she could. Her family joked that we had to make an appointment to visit, as she was so busy.
She loved it. A resident’s group was formed, and mum became secretary, typing up minutes of meetings and being actively involved with decisions about the running of the place.
A lovely group of residents enjoyed the benefits of extra care. A call button in each unit was reassuring for families, a secure entry system catered for safety and if care was needed it could be arranged with the onsite care workers, obviously a cost for Mum which was never an issue. She would pay her way.
The shop for Mum took on a new meaning to her life. Being a silver surfer, she would do online Tesco orders, have them delivered, price them up and anything made from selling items in the shop (aptly named Jean’s Corner Shop), would go into entertainment for all. It even got to the point where she would source specific items for people as requested.
Mum was meticulous in her accounting, even Tesco club points would be spent on shop goods. Residents enjoyed communal activities. Bingo, quizzes, raffles, the market man, weekly film club. She was happy. She had found a fulfilling later life.
Thank you, Hanover Housing.
So, What Went Wrong?
In 2018 a merger came about with Anchor Housing. Anchor took over Hanover Housing and formed Anchor Hanover. What a profound difference. From being content in her surroundings, we began to hear concerns and worries.
A group of residents were asked to look at the replacement of chairs in the lounge, that never materialised. The gardener was dismissed as there was a cheaper tender that had come in. Residents didn’t want that and petitioned to keep their trusted staff. But the decision was overridden by the scheme manager.
The long-time cook left and a new catering company was appointed. The standard of meals declined sharply. The once award winning gardens now had grass to a metre high but the charges for communal gardening remained.
The Battle for Control
Most of all, the level of control that residents had over the decisions affecting their homes was eroded, and this was one of the most stressful aspects. Anchor didn’t like the fact that there was a residents’ group. They alleged that it was not inclusive and organised its demise.
When it is your own place, you make decisions and pay accordingly. You oversee the quality of work and have an expectation of good service for payment.
But being reliant on a housing association that excluded Mum and other residents from decisions, services became more expensive as steadily as the quality of work declined. When Mum and other residents complained, each was told that they were the only dissatisfied customers. It was gaslighting similar to the Post Office scandal, and a drive to divide and conquer.
One day Mum found a leak in her bathroom. She notified the scheme’s manager who told her not to turn on her main bathroom light, but to use the light above the mirror. She was waking at night walking into the bathroom where the floor was wet. There was actually water in her main bathroom light.
Sadly, Mum had a number of falls, starting in November 2021. The falls took their toll on Mum’s mental resilience, as well as her physical health. Her confidence had gone, and she became less and less active.
Back to the Charges
I began to get more involved in looking through the service charges that Anchor Hanover was demanding, and I asked for invoices. Once you start delving into these things, you realise it is a minefield.
The accounts are laid out in different formats virtually every year, so there was no year-on-year consistency. In November 2022, residents were notified that service charges would be jumping from £460 per month to £724.
Utilities were blamed for the increase, but I started to look deeper. Interest earned on the reserve fund and sinking fund was blatantly wrong. I opened a first level complaint citing cockroaches, no gardener, no estate manager, inconsistencies with accounts, and other problems.
Double Charging?
Throughout this time, Anchor Hanover was receiving a grant from Slough Borough Council of approximately £47,000 per year for activities and housing support services. Yet leaseholders were being charged for these same activities and support through their service charges. We verified the overcharging through a Freedom of Information request to SBC.
In June 2025, the Regulator of Social Housing (RSH), downgraded Anchor Hanover for poor performance on governance.
On one occasion on arriving at the scheme, two skips were in the car park, a team of new faces were in the building and rumours abounded. What was happening? I named them The Cull Team because it transpired that they were employed by Anchor to declutter cupboards and communal areas, and put good management processes back in place.
This in itself was evidence of a development that time forgot. Or at least Anchor had. I managed to meet with one of the team and put all our dissatisfactions to him. He listened and responded well with lots of empathy. I have to say it was quite an unsettling time for the residents.
What Partnership?
From the merger in 2018 it seemed that little partnership work was going on between Slough Borough Council and Anchor. SBC have been in dire straits. The council was found to be massively in debt.
Back in 2019, they contracted to create a new extra care development and the necessary contracts were signed. This in itself was a strange decision. The Shared Ownership Extra Care units which SBC already had access to weren’t selling, and many sat empty for long periods. Eventually, the plans for a new scheme collapsed, with SBC having to buy its way out of the contract, costing a lot of money with nothing to show for it.
Now, SBC has washed its hands of any involvement with the housing element of my Mum’s scheme, even though they have a reversionary interest on the land, advertise the developments as their Extra Care Provision, and originally received a £2.9 million government grant towards these developments.
Back to Anchor Hanover
I questioned the accounts and budget. The service charge statements and rationale for the services were haphazard and inconsistent. One year catering costs were included, the next they were not. One year we were told that service charges were apportioned according to floor space, the next we were told that it was apportioned equally per unit, and not based on floor space.
I asked for a full break down of utility bills. I was sent replies, but nothing was really answered. Despite my requests, I have never received the actual bills.
In the information I was sent, codes were frequently changed, invoices for works were not available, jobs were marked up and repeated as if not actual work but a repeated pattern of works, income from SBC was recoded and taken into Anchors coffers. So many elements of it raised questions.
My formal complaint passed from person to person. Apart from being told that Anchor Hanover was sorry that I was dissatisfied, nothing changed. Then, my complaint was abruptly closed down on the basis that I’d ‘extinguished all internal lines of enquiry’.
Eventually, after organising a group complaint from the residents, we received an invitation to a meeting with a letter which explained that an ‘error’ had been found, and that service charges were to be reduced by around £80 per month per resident. Cynically I don’t believe it was an error. I believe they needed to offer us something to curb our unrest.
The Final Move and a Lightbulb Moment
See SHAC’s End Servic Charge Abuse Campaign
As Mum’s health declined further, we had to take the decision to move her into a nursing home. At around this time, I caught a BBC news article about a tenant, Michael, who was a member of SHAC.
He had challenged his housing association about service charges and actually discovered ‘errors’ amounting to thousands of pounds. He was involved in SHAC’s campaign to ‘End Service Charge Abuse’. I found out that we were not alone and my eyes were opened.
Housing associations throughout the country were being criticised for extortionate overcharging, lack of empathy to tenants, poor or no housing repairs, mould, damp, infestations, raw sewage issues, and failing to address anti-social behaviour.
How could housing associations, once a force for good, have been allowed so much power for so little give?
What was happening to the reported £4 billion plus of surpluses that were being made? Why were their executive and board members being paid such huge salaries if they were not performing?
Why was it so hard for tenants and residents to get justice when things go wrong? Why are housing associations not subject to Freedom of Information requests even though they get vast sums from the public purse?
I was shocked to the core. The system is broken and so many elements of it didn’t make sense. Since my Mum’s death, we have gained a new government, but Angela Rayner is pushing Shared Ownership so it is a case of new government, same story.
Challenge is Needed
When trying to sell Mum’s share after her death, Anchor trapped us within a chain that is weighing us down. Excessive service charges are still due after death. Decent homes lie empty because Anchor are not obliged to buy back leases even when government grant money was used in their development.
This has been a story of injustice in life and even after death; discrimination against leaseholders, being trapped within a shared ownership scheme, and it highlights a broken housing system.
I had never in my 64 years of life protested against anything, but when SHAC organised a protest outside the Social Housing Finance Conference, I took the offer up. I made my poster, sourced my trainers, and I joined the protest. It felt good.
I dedicate this story to my mum, Jean. Nobody puts Jean in the corner, unless it was in her corner shop, where her name lives on above the door.
Support SHAC Action to End Service Charge Abuse
SHAC has launched a Parliamentary petition demanding legal changes to allow disputed service charges to be paid to the courts and only passed onto landlords if they can prove the legitimacy of the bills. Otherwise, the money is returned to the tenant or resident.
To get this in place, it is not enough to just sign the petition, we need everyone to share it in their networks: friends, tenant and resident groups, colleagues at work, within your trade union, and across any social media platforms you use.
Help with Shared Ownership
If you are affected by shared ownership problems, you might find the advice on the Shared Ownership Resources website helpful.
29 July 2025
If you have a WordPress account, get notifications about new articles by subscribing below: