Serious fire safety defects in new build

Rosemary7391

Guest101 wrote: »

There could be a small element of compensation. Given they will need access to the flat for a guess - 3 days? you could ask for alternate accommodation for 3 days.

The OP makes it sound like they're going to take down and rebuild every wall in the flat. If I've read that right they're not just going to need to stay somewhere else for a few days, they're going to need to get all their stuff out and flooring up too. Can you clarify what arrangements you've been asked to make to accommodate the work OP? That'll be a good baseline for determining just how disruptive it's going to be...

smartest_smarty

EachPenny wrote: »

Go and speak to a solicitor for advice, people on the internet can help, but you need proper legal advice.

And as a friendly suggestion, you might also want to get legal advice on the wisdom of publishing a statement which names a person or organisation and accuses them of 'negligence'.

You also need to separate faults during design and construction from the work to rectify those faults and make the building safer. People objecting to fire safety works on the grounds it inconveniences them are unlikely to get a great deal of sympathy. Objecting to the original failings you claim is a different matter.

Hi,

Thanks for your reply, I'm not objecting to the proposed works, I'm objecting that a building is signed off as safe - people live in it for one year, only to be told it wasn't safe at all.

smartest_smarty

ReadingTim wrote: »

The "compensation" is the remedial work which is being done to make the place safer.

----No one said it would. It's the principle.

OP - this is neither negligent, reckless, nor worthy of compensation. Suggest you put your time and energy into learning what these terms mean, rather than believing every "where there's blame there's a claim" ambulance chasing ads you see on daytime TV.

Negligent = failure to take care. (Yes it is, to declare something as safe when it is not, and allow people to live there. Yes that is negligence).

Reckless = Heedless of the consequences of ones actions. (Yes it's reckless again to sign off a building as safe when it wasn't, if a fire had taken place and the safety is inadequate would you still say this isn't reckless). Rushing the sign off of the building is reckless.

smartest_smarty

Originally Posted by Guest101 View Post
There could be a small element of compensation. Given they will need access to the flat for a guess - 3 days? you could ask for alternate accommodation for 3 days.

Currently no timescale at all.

The hallway work has been ongoing for about 6 months. On only one floor (should give some perspective on this situation).

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

The OP does say " proposed work to remove all walls in the hallways, and then in each and every flat. Should the walls not be replaced and redecorated to the current standard (which may be in excess of the standard provided when the flats were bought) then yes, they should be compensated for that.

You'd have to wait first and see what they do though.

Hallway walls on top floor been replaced with pink boards.

smartest_smarty

eddddy wrote: »

Are you completely clear about who is paying for this work?

For example, has the original building contractor agreed that they are covering the cost?

If the Freeholder (Housing Association) is paying, are they planning to re-charge it to leaseholders as part of the service charge?


- If it was not built to spec, hopefully the building contractor should pay.
- If it was badly specified/designed, hopefully the architect should pay
- But if the Housing Association is simply improving/upgrading fire safety, leaseholders may have to contribute to that

At first was told landlord would cover all expenses. Yesterday got a letter saying service charge will be increased to cover fire safety maintenance. This is disgraceful.

eddddy

smartest_smarty wrote: »

At first was told landlord would cover all expenses. Yesterday got a letter saying service charge will be increased to cover fire safety maintenance. This is disgraceful.

It's interesting that they say fire safety maintenance and not fire safety improvements.

Many leases give the freeholder the automatic right to charge leaseholders for maintenance, but not for improvements.

Also, if the service charge per leaseholder is going to be more than £250, the freeholders should have done a section 20 consultation.


There's lots of complexities here, but I guess the bottom line is that

- if somebody did something wrong (e.g. specified the wrong materials, fitted the wrong materials), you might have a case for not paying.

- if a section 20 consultation should have been done but wasn't, you might have a case for not paying.

- if it's improvement work, rather than maintenance work, you might have a case for not paying

But on the basis that the work should be making you safer, perhaps you want to pay anyway.



(You also asked about compensation for inconvenience. As it's shared ownership, you might have a case for 'rent abatement'. e.g. if 25% of your flat is unusable for 2 weeks due to repairs, you might get 25% reduction in rent for those 2 weeks.)

ReadingTim

smartest_smarty wrote: »

----No one said it would. It's the principle.

You don't get any compensation for your principles being "outraged" sweetie. Get over it.