Grenfell cladding: who is liable?

Voyager2002

Many home-owners face uncertainty because their flats are in buildings that used the same type of cladding as Grenfell tower. Who is responsible for the cost of making these buildings safe: those who own leasehold flats within them; the freeholder; the developer; or perhaps the company that supplied defective cladding? And why were building regulations watered down to permit the use of this kind of material?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/nov/27/grenfell-cladding-firm-spends-30m-defending-its-role-in-disaster

boo_star

If they passed the regulations of the time I'm not sure anyone has comeback against the developer.

A bit extreme but do I have comeback if my 16th century barn sets fire because it doesn't follow 21st century building regulations?

Sailtheworld

The leaseholder has to pay - section 20 works. It'll be very clear in the lease.

Even it can be shown that the builder was negligent in the build they'll usually be off the hook if 6 years have passed. If there's still an NHBC warranty in force it won't be covered because it's a latent defect.

William the Conqueror designed the freehold scheme so that his cronies could make an income off the land they'd been gifted with none of the liabilities. It continues in much the same vein today. There's zero chance a bill is going to be met by the freeholder.

Voyager2002

And now it has gone to court:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/nov/28/grenfell-contractor-being-sued-over-blocks-with-similar-cladding

SpiderLegs

Is it the right wing media’s fault?

Voyager2002

Things are getting worse...

pickledonionspaceraider

Surely it should be the fault of the government body whom instructed the works

They tried to skimp as per bloody usual and it ruined lives

Andy_L

SpiderLegs wrote: »

Is it the right wing media’s fault?

I blame Thatcher

westernpromise

Ultimately / effectively the lessees are liable.

Even if somehow the freeholder were decided to be liable, the freeholder's usually a company that has no money. So it would bill the lessees to raise the money. If they try to insist the freehold company should pay and win in court, the freehold company will just go bust. The lessees will then need a new owner of the freehold and the value of it of course will be £0 minus the cost to rectify.

More generally there is an argument that the state is at fault for specifying an unsafe construction materials standard. I can't recall offhand when such a claim has worked. Doesn't mean it hasn't, I just can't remember if it has. But illustratively, say the speed limit is 50 on a bit of road, and people get killed. The limit's then lowered to 30 because 50 clearly wasn't safe. Does the local council now owe money to the relatives and dependents of those killed when the limit was mistakenly set at 50? I bet it doesn't unless it can be proved that it set the limit negligently. I don't know how you'd prove that.

maisie_cat

pickledonionspaceraider wrote: »

Surely it should be the fault of the government body whom instructed the works

They tried to skimp as per bloody usual and it ruined lives

They went with the lowest priced bid as they are required to do with public money. If the cladding was certified they can't be blamed for that. If the manufacturer falsified the safety certification then the buck stops there.

ytfcmad

maisie_cat wrote: »

They went with the lowest priced bid as they are required to do with public money. If the cladding was certified they can't be blamed for that. If the manufacturer falsified the safety certification then the buck stops there.

Absolute rubbish, they dont have to go with the lowest quote and quite often dont.
I see this myself very often, dealing with new build and refurb projects with councils and government procurement across the UK