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

numbercruncher8

Don't think it is really. Like I said before, the flat isn't unsellable. The value is not £0, it's just put that way because the lender does not want to lend to people buying it. You can sell it to someone with cash.

It is a bit different to cars or electronic goods recall as they are fixed because of defects, not changing standards.

Put it this way, there are a lot of old flats out there with electronics that don't conform to current standards and would be not legal if installed today. They are not inherently unsafe on their own, but standards have changed.

If suddenly the government made them illegal to exist, who should cover the costs of re-installation? It seems unreasonable for either the freeholder or the original installer to eat that cost - there was nothing wrong at the time.

If freeholders were suddenly liable for these things, then ultimately the leaseholders end up paying for it as service charges would increase over time.

NameUnavailable

Unfortunately any costs will be charged to the leaseholders under the service charge.

There are procedures if you wish to object but you have to provide evidence, expert witnesses, estimates for alternative works etc., which I guess will be pretty impossible unless you were to form a group with the other leaseholders. Even then the costs to take something like this to tribunal will be high and you may also be liable for your freeholders costs, as well as the cost of any work finally deemed necessary.

The government are bringing in more legislation regarding larger blocks and I'm afraid that the costs are going to increase further - the freeholder will be obliged to fit or update any fire systems in the building and larger blocks will need a full time safety manager appointed which again, you will be paying for, on top of the usual service charges.

It's all a bit sledgehammer to crack a nut if you ask me and personally I do think freeholders should bear some of the costs of making their properties safe.

Mickey666

AdrianC said:

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.

The failure of the ‘stay put’ advice was an early preliminary conclusion from the on-going enquiry.  I appreciate hindsight is a wonderful thing but it does highlight that by ‘following the book’ Instead of properly assessing the specific conditions, time was lost in an evacuation.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/oct/30/grenfell-inquiry-chair-demands-evacuation-plan-all-high-rises

zenbuddhist

davidmcn said:

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.

People did have legal advice etc and surveys and the building passed building regulations at the time. 
The problem is the lack of suitable regulations. Multiple governments have failed. A deregulated market where developers profit is put first, and safety last. Add a feudal leasehold system which does not exist in any other European country and you get the mess we (thankfully not me personally) are in now.
How everyone thinks it's leaseholders' responsibility to pay is beyond me. If you do a quick search on Twitter you'll find it's ruining a lot of people's lives. 

AdrianC

Mickey666 said:

AdrianC said:

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.

The failure of the ‘stay put’ advice was an early preliminary conclusion from the on-going enquiry.  I appreciate hindsight is a wonderful thing but it does highlight that by ‘following the book’ Instead of properly assessing the specific conditions, time was lost in an evacuation.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/oct/30/grenfell-inquiry-chair-demands-evacuation-plan-all-high-rises

Yes, that article from last October refers to the publication of the phase 1 report I linked to - and which, as I said, goes directly against what you said about the fire service being "beyond reproach" because of "PC".

Mickey666

Well, let’s wait for the final report and the reaction to it.

blue_max_3

My thoughts are the local authority that approved/oversaw the construction of the towers is the most responsible. It isn't for the government to step in. But ultimately if they are found not to be responsible, we'll all pay anyway through higher council taxes.
A sorry tale for sure.

[Deleted User]

How many floors is the building.  I think this has something to do with if the cladding needs replacing I found this 

"Fire safety is broadly regulated by Part B of the Building Regulations. Part B4 of Schedule 1 to the Regulations states:

“the external walls of the building shall adequately resist the spread of fire over the walls from one building to another, having regard to the height, use and position of the building”

This requirement applies to buildings of any height but the use of combustible materials is only expressly banned on the external walls and specified attachments (such as balconies) of buildings taller than 18 metres."  

The website has other things that make useful reading https://www.haroldbenjamin.com/site/blog/harold-benjamin-blog/combustible-cladding-leaseholders-home-buyers-need-to-be-aware

Mickey666

Yes, one would think the building control process would have caught any non-compliant materials.
Will be an interesting report!

eddddy

Mickey666 said:

Yes, one would think the building control process would have caught any non-compliant materials.
Will be an interesting report!

Not really. Realistically, if the builder says the panels are of a particular type, building control won't test them to make sure they are.

And even if the Building Inspectors were negligent, various court cases (including a House of Lords ruling) have found that Building Inspectors cannot be held liable for losses caused by their negligence.

But there's also the argument that the panels were approved and met building regs at the time, so the Building Inspectors and builders did nothing wrong.