Value of London flats slashed by Grenfell-style cladding

westernpromise

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/apr/16/value-of-london-flats-slashed-by-grenfell-style-cladding

A homeowner in a housing complex in London with Grenfell-type cladding has been told the value of her £475,000 home has collapsed and is now just £50,000...."All ongoing sales in the development have fallen through. Banks are not lending to potential buyers and provide valuations of zero for flats in our development," she said.

I've never been a fan of modern blocks, although not specifically for this reason. Having lived in shoddy conversions with poor sound insulation, I always look with these buildings to see how big the gap is between the ceiling of one flat and the floor of another. There's often almost no gap, which implies a lot of noise transmission (in a flat I used to own, whenever the upstairs neighbours flushed the toilet, you could hear their poos bumping along the plastic soil pipe that ran inches above the living room ceiling).

Another concern I have always had is that this type of building is not very old. Nobody has yet experienced what they'll be like to live in when they're 50 years old, but buy a 25-year-old one today, on a typical mortgage term, and by the end of it in 2043, you will know. The prognosis, based on how fast the hideous brutalist 1960s blocks decayed, isn't good. If you look too at how poor the quality of modern houses is compared say to Edwardian or Victorian, the assumption must be that blocks of flats are of similarly poor build quality.

It wouldn't have occurred to me that the type of exterior cladding used could make a tower-block flat worthless, but I'd still have avoided them, for a host of other reasons. This tale does go to show though that people who have speculatively bought property in the past have not been making the riskless bet that the shorts angrily tend to assume ex-post.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

These Help To Buy developments are heavily promoted in the Standard. Lots of promotional visuals showing happy couples relaxing on their balconies (view of car park not included). I've always thought they looked horribly overpriced.

I briefly rented in a modern block of flats; flimsy walls and neighbours with kids was enough to deter me.

Would have thought it's a massive PR own goal for Galliard and others to avoid responsibility for their construction; why would anyone want to buy one now?

westernpromise

There's a lot to be said for buying an old building that's been minimally messed with.

Although with that said, look at how many old buildings have asbestos in them. That was a fire-retardant safety material that turns out to be carcinogenic. Who could have seen that coming?

Owain_Moneysaver

westernpromise wrote: »

If you look too at how poor the quality of modern houses is compared say to Edwardian or Victorian, the assumption must be that blocks of flats are of similarly poor build quality.

On the other hand, a lot of Victorian etc stuff was very badly built and has since fallen down / been demolished / got bombed during the war, and we're generally left with the best of what was built.

They also tend to be seen as desirable residences, so people maintain them.

Not all of course, there are still lots of old Victorian terraces with crumbly single skin back kitchen offshots with a bathroom in the former coal-cupboard beyond that, no insulation, and very basic heating and plumbing installations. Quite often in the private rented sector.

Graham_Devon

Got to feel incredibly sorry for those who bought these flats. Thought I have to say, £475k for a flat!?

I can't find much about the developers and what the legal battle is over who pays the bill to rectify all this - hoping it's not the government?

Either way, if I were in her position, which there will be many who are, I'd be doing all I can to pay off my HTB loan right now, paying £10,000 to pay off the loan r

Rich2808

westernpromise wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/apr/16/value-of-london-flats-slashed-by-grenfell-style-cladding

A homeowner in a housing complex in London with Grenfell-type cladding has been told the value of her £475,000 home has collapsed and is now just £50,000...."All ongoing sales in the development have fallen through. Banks are not lending to potential buyers and provide valuations of zero for flats in our development," she said.

I've never been a fan of modern blocks, although not specifically for this reason. Having lived in shoddy conversions with poor sound insulation, I always look with these buildings to see how big the gap is between the ceiling of one flat and the floor of another. There's often almost no gap, which implies a lot of noise transmission (in a flat I used to own, whenever the upstairs neighbours flushed the toilet, you could hear their poos bumping along the plastic soil pipe that ran inches above the living room ceiling).

Another concern I have always had is that this type of building is not very old. Nobody has yet experienced what they'll be like to live in when they're 50 years old, but buy a 25-year-old one today, on a typical mortgage term, and by the end of it in 2043, you will know. The prognosis, based on how fast the hideous brutalist 1960s blocks decayed, isn't good. If you look too at how poor the quality of modern houses is compared say to Edwardian or Victorian, the assumption must be that blocks of flats are of similarly poor build quality.

It wouldn't have occurred to me that the type of exterior cladding used could make a tower-block flat worthless, but I'd still have avoided them, for a host of other reasons. This tale does go to show though that people who have speculatively bought property in the past have not been making the riskless bet that the shorts angrily tend to assume ex-post.

I agree with your point about build quality.

I used to rent a new build. I knew a bricklayer and he thought the whole building would collapse eventually because of the poor quality of the brick work and the building generally!

I decided not to hang around!

Problem is houses are so expensive in London its very difficult even for the very well paid to afford one – so flats are the only option.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

westernpromise wrote: »

There's a lot to be said for buying an old building that's been minimally messed with.

Although with that said, look at how many old buildings have asbestos in them. That was a fire-retardant safety material that turns out to be carcinogenic. Who could have seen that coming?

I work in a 60s build full of asbestos. It's only dangerous if you take a drill to it and breathe in the dust.

I read the Property pages in the Metro yesterday for a laugh. I think you could make an academic study of the language and pictures used in ads for new build flats.

I bought later in life (35), which meant I bypassed flats and went straight to a house; no fannying around with leases, communal entrances and HTB loans or shared ownership. The estate agent didn't even bother with words like "aspirational", "vibrant" or "up and coming"; they just said "it's cheap for London."

kabayiri

That future radio ad.

Have you been missold PPI or a pension?
Have you had your holiday spoiled with food poisoning?
Did someone clad your home whilst you were asleep?

If yes, ring the 'Grabbing Lawyers for you' on 078.....

The answer is of course, to clad the cladding. Okay, so your window view gets less and less, but think of the heat insulation.

AnotherJoe

westernpromise wrote: »

If you look too at how poor the quality of modern houses is compared say to Edwardian or Victorian, the assumption must be that blocks of flats are of similarly poor build quality.
.

I suspect that's a sampling bias, the many that were poorly built have long since been demolished and you only see the few good survivors.

SouthLondonUser

Single cases are utterly irrelevant. I'd be curious to see if there is any significant evidence on the building quality of the different types of properties. A German colleague loves to remind me that in Germany developers would lose their licence if they were found to have done a poor work. Here? What licence?

The new and newish flats I have lived in all had much better insulation than the Victorian conversions or older properties I rented, but I have no idea how representative that is. I once lived in an expensive flat in a 1920s block, and it was the worst ever: there was a communal hot water tank (a shared mega boiler, not a smart idea) and they found legionella in it, so no showers for 6 months! Oh, and it was bloody freezing.

But, back to cladding, don't surveyors architects etc have any kind of responsibility?

Graham_Devon

The government has agreed to sell the HTB aspect of the loan to the buyers for £10,000 instead of £95,000. Think it's the right thing to do but leaves the taxpayer with an £85k loss for every one of these properties.

However, the buyers will still be left with the huge negative equity on the mortgage. Developers are walking away.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/apr/25/help-to-buy-agency-writes-down-loan-on-flat-over-grenfell-style-cladding