Building Cladding £500,000? Who has to pay... Help

hstanko1971

My 83-year-old dad lives in a flat which he owns, since the Grenfell fire it has been found that the outside of their block doesn't meet fire standards and that it will need redoing at a cost to the residents of £500,000. This works out to be £15,000 per flat. Surely there must be some sort of help available as they are now stuck in a flat that is worthless and cant be sold. Who is responsible to pay? Them or the builders? They live in the UK.

Comms69

hstanko1971 said:

My 83-year-old dad lives in a flat which he owns, since the Grenfell fire it has been found that the outside of their block doesn't meet fire standards and that it will need redoing at a cost to the residents of £500,000. This works out to be £15,000 per flat. Surely there must be some sort of help available as they are now stuck in a flat that is worthless and cant be sold. Who is responsible to pay? Them or the builders? They live in the UK.

The leaseholders would pay. Why wouldnt they?

Alter_ego

The leaseholders would pay. Why wouldnt they?

Perhaps because they don't own the building or the cladding?

Comms69

Alter_ego said:

The leaseholders would pay. Why wouldnt they?

Perhaps because they don't own the building or the cladding?

Literally what service charges are for.... 

AdrianC

The leaseholders are generally responsible for the costs of all maintenance and upgrades to the building. The precise post-Grenfell situation may vary, but it is as yet unclear. It may vary depending on who the freeholder is.

Have a read of this:
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8244/CBP-8244.pdf

The builders will merely have fitted cladding which - at the time - was believed to be acceptable under building regs. Grenfell changed that perception.

eddddy

hstanko1971 said:

My 83-year-old dad lives in a flat which he owns, since the Grenfell fire it has been found that the outside of their block doesn't meet fire standards and that it will need redoing at a cost to the residents of £500,000. This works out to be £15,000 per flat. Surely there must be some sort of help available as they are now stuck in a flat that is worthless and cant be sold. Who is responsible to pay? Them or the builders? They live in the UK.

I'd imagine that your dad has had lots of correspondence from his freeholder / management company about this.  It would probably be helpful to read that to get up to speed - to find out what options the freeholder has investigated so far, and which, if any, are likely to succeed.

For example, in theory, it might be possible for the freeholder to make a warranty claim from the builders or their defect insurers (e.g. NHBC). I guess the freeholder has investigated that route - but it might be helpful to know if that investigation is ongoing, or has failed etc.

daveyjp

He is one of thousands in the same position.

Until Government put in place a solution every property will be dealt with individually and under the law which generally states leaseholders are responsible for works to the common areas, unless the problem can be pinned on someone.

This is unlikely if the property was built in line with the building regulations in force at the time.  For a freeholder to sue an architect, developer, contractor etc will cost thousands (potentially also paid for by the leaseholders) and will take years.

numbercruncher8

You can sell the flat, it's just that you'd need a buyer to accept that they could be on the hook for the repair fees and also that they couldn't sell to a regular buyer. So the price would be less. I can see several flats on RM that I suspect do not have the EWS1 at the moment, so valuation = £0, but are hoping that by the time an offer comes in everything will be done.

To me, it is unfortunate, but isn't this the cost of ownership? If you paid the £15,000 and something happened in the market next year to make the price of the flat double, you wouldn't share the equity gain with the freeholder would you? 

Ultimately I think there will be government assistance for the most at risk blocks.

hstanko1971

Isn't it a bit like buying a new car/ tumble dryer that in a years time there has been a common fault found and the items are recalled and the problem rectified as the company's own cost, I understand at the time the flats were built it was fine but why do they do it for things like cars, washing machines, etc but not a home... whats the difference.

davidmcn

hstanko1971 said:

Isn't it a bit like buying a new car/ tumble dryer that in a years time there has been a common fault found and the items are recalled and the problem rectified as the company's own cost, I understand at the time the flats were built it was fine but why do they do it for things like cars, washing machines, etc but not a home... whats the difference.

Because flats are different? Because you have the opportunity to seek professional advice when you buy a flat about its condition and legal liabilities attached to it, which is hardly typical when you buy a tumble dryer?

In any event, which company do you think is liable in your father's case? As you can see from the Grenfell inquiry, there's not exactly any one party holding a smoking gun.

AdrianC

Mickey666 said:

While there is undoubtedly a risk associated with some cladding, is there Really no way to reduce this risk rather than replace it all at such high costs?  How about some form of external sprinkler system that would quickly dowse any small fire before it became catastrophic and would certainly buy enough time for evacuation - the delay in which was a big problem at Grenfell. I imagine the necessary pipe work would cost a lot less than full replacement of the cladding.

I suspect it would be considerably more expensive - both to install and in ongoing maintenance...

The sad fact about Grenfell is that the wrong advice was given regarding evacuation yet the fire service is apparently beyond reproach and so It’s not ‘PC’ to discuss such things.  The whole thing has become a political mess instead of a simple, tragic mistake.  

Anyone living in blocks of flats with external cladding is now having to pay the price of all this political nonsense.

Might you perhaps be prejudging the outcome of the enquiry, which is still ongoing?

https://www.grenfelltowerinquiry.org.uk/
You'll see from that that phase 2 hearings are in week 11 of taking evidence currently, as part of "module 1".
You'll also see from that that the phase 1 report was published last October. Here's the exec summary...
https://assets.grenfelltowerinquiry.org.uk/GTI - Phase 1 report Executive Summary.pdf
Chapter 34, para 6 would seem to be rather directly contradictory to your claim of "PC" (lemme guess, "gawn mad innit") and that the fire service is "beyond reproach", wouldn't you agree?
"34.6 - These and other shortcomings described earlier in this report raise far-reaching questions about the LFB as an organisation. Some may question whether its training is adequate in the light of experience; others may question whether it is capable of learning from its mistakes. No conclusion can be reached on questions of that kind at this stage because there has been no examination of the way in which the LFB is managed and no opportunity to question those who are responsible at the highest level for its operations about these apparent shortcomings. However, they are matters of the greatest importance to all who live and work in the capital and will be an important aspect of Phase 2 of the investigation."

Para 34.7 addresses the materials testing for building regs - again, phase 2 will look in much more detail.