Last week I returned from the supermarket having spent £270 on shopping. I later discovered some of the items were out of date, others were faulty, and I believed I had been overcharged on a couple of things. I retrieved the receipt. It stated groceries £270. I returned to the shop. The manager suggested I return in 18 months when he would consider looking at any refunds - and there would be a charge for it.

Of course, this never happened. Consumers are protected by legislation. Each item has to be itemized, invoiced accordingly allowing checks to be easily made. Leaseholders are classed as consumers and yet the same level of protection is not offered.

REPAIRS: 'CERTIFIED' OVERCHARGING

Between 2019 and 2021 Lambert Court were charged £3,666.89 for repairs to the estate. The genuine cost was £540. These repairs were undertaken by ESH Construction and the costs based on the NHF Schedule of rates.

These charges had all passed through the accountancy firm Beevers and Struthers and had been 'certified'.

It was evident that this 'overcharging' would not be restricted just to Lambert Court. I have requested that an independent investigation be instigated across the region covered by the contract with ESH Construction going back to the commencement of that contract in 2018.

Accent Housing have offered to refund 50% of all repair work to Lambert Court since the beginning of the contract with ESH Construction and yet they refuse to investigate allegations of fraud, overcharging on other estates or provide invoices.

Julie Wittich has taken on the lead role in 'resolving' this problem.

I was promised, by Sarah Ireland, the invoices for the work undertaken at Lambert Court outside that covered by the tribunal.

Below is an example of the type of invoicing provided.

Julie Wittich believes this covers the request.

This is the same information a resident will receive under a section 22 (LTA) request for 'underlying' invoices.

It is a six figure code and a value.

• No reference to any work
• No evidence that the correct contracted price has been applied
• No reference to whether the contracted discount has been applied
• No reference to whether the work was first fix only and as such cannot be recharged
• No mention whether each line entry involved multiple invoices.

Nothing is revealed about any work which is exactly what Accent Housing want.

What Accent Housing do not want you to see are the original individual invoices which provide the work description and the Schedule of rates applied as these prices are contractually controlled. These invoices had to be presented to the tribunal and only then was it revealed not one was genuine.

An example of the invoicing Accent Housing do not want you to see is shown below. These are being withheld.

Julie Wittich confirms in an email;

Julie Wittich spent four years as head of repairs at BPHA. She is fully aware of the consequences of revealing the true underlying invoices. She references them in an email but will not provide them.

This is why Julie Wittich as stated in her email has; ' offered a resolution to bring this matter to a close.' by providing a 50% refund on all repairs.

Accent Housing would love to bring this matter to a close.

For Accent Housing this is without doubt a better option than genuinely investigating overcharging of all their residents in the North East of England since 2017.

Accent also attached a convenient legal disclaimer - below.

Is it to be believed that this practice only occurred over that period and only at Lambert Court.

The same individuals involved in the 'overcharging' at Lambert Court were responsible for all the invoicing across the North East region covered by the contract with ESH that extended back to 2017

I have offered the direct contact email of the trading standards officer involved with the case to all executives, board members and Paul Dolan CEO. It simply requires any one of them to report the malpractice and it will be investigated. To date not a single Accent employee has risen to the task.