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

daveyjp

blue_max_3 said:

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.

Building Control was opened to private sector inspectors decades ago.  Local Authorities have to compete with the provate sector providers for the work so Council may not have had any oversight.

As regards materials go back 50 years and the building would have been filled with asbestos because it was good for everything!

annetheman

Welcome to the world of the Cladding Scandal. Unfortunately as said previously, your father is one of millions, not thousands, in the same position now. Search "EndOurCladdingScandal" on Twitter for a myriad of news articles, interviews and action groups campaigning about this issue.

It's one to watch - Australian courts have in recent weeks ruled for the leaseholders in a building with historic fire safety defects. No lawsuit in the UK has met with similar success but I wonder if - as more and more people realise they are in this position - the government will be forced to take action. After all, it is due to poor govt building regs that allowed these cheap, class 0 materials to be fitted onto buildings and signed off as safe. Now they've moved the goalposts they need to clean up the mess.

One suggestion is - as Australia have done - to make developers pay a levy on all new home sales that will be added to a building fire safety remediation fund, to fix historic defects that were signed off as safe at the time and now need remediation. This can be topped up with a govt loan for freeholders, that they will eventually pay back where they can't make up the rest of the money required for the works.

Remember though that most housing associations are charities and don't turn a profit - they put their surplus funds into acquiring more housing stock to meet govt quotas. Unless they can divert some of this into the same remediation fund, the expectation in the sector is that many leaseholders in purpose built blocks across the country will be made bankrupt.

It's a complete crisis.

maisie_cat

I have a house that was originally 2 cottages, at some point one of the cottages was clad and we need to remove it. At no point did I expect anybody else to pay for the work?, why should somebody who bought a flat?. in both cases the cladding was okay at the time and complied with building regs

Wanderingpomm

maisie_cat said:

I have a house that was originally 2 cottages, at some point one of the cottages was clad and we need to remove it. At no point did I expect anybody else to pay for the work?, why should somebody who bought a flat?. in both cases the cladding was okay at the time and complied with building regs

Because the freeholder owns the fabric of the building and so is responsible for its upkeep. And was it ok at the time? Lots of them are not very compliant.

thearchitect

I'm afraid it doesn't help OP with his query, but just to point out that the separate Scottish Building Regs improved fire safety requirements significantly on the back of the Garnock Court fire in 1999.  English authorities argued this was not necessary.  That is why the number of buildings affected is more than 400 south of the Border, but only 20 to the north.  Scotland also refused to allow private inspector models.   And yet the single market bill seeks to align the Scottish Regs with the English.   Go figure.

annetheman

maisie_cat said:

I have a house that was originally 2 cottages, at some point one of the cottages was clad and we need to remove it. At no point did I expect anybody else to pay for the work?, why should somebody who bought a flat?. in both cases the cladding was okay at the time and complied with building regs

I absolutely agree the building owner, which you were - I assume your cottages were not leasehold? - should pay for their own building repairs. You do realise that a leaseholder doesn't even have the right to instruct an intrusive survey to ensure what they are buying is not a fire trap - because they are merely leasing (or long-term assured renting) the property.

The building owner instructs necessary surveys and produces building certificates ensuring the home meets safety standards and, like you, if it no longer does, they should pay for the repairs. Some responsible flat building owners are; many more are refusing to.

Even if leaseholders wanted to start remediation works paid for by themselves, they couldn't! Only the building owner can and currently can get away with not paying for it.

AdrianC

maisie_cat said:

I have a house that was originally 2 cottages, at some point one of the cottages was clad and we need to remove it. At no point did I expect anybody else to pay for the work?, why should somebody who bought a flat?. in both cases the cladding was okay at the time and complied with building regs

Do you realise that you're arguing in favour of the leaseholders paying?

You do realise that all maintenance and upgrades to the fabric are split between the leaseholders, right? Via the service charge and/or sinking fund.

blue_max_3

daveyjp said:

blue_max_3 said:

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.

Building Control was opened to private sector inspectors decades ago.  Local Authorities have to compete with the provate sector providers for the work so Council may not have had any oversight.

As regards materials go back 50 years and the building would have been filled with asbestos because it was good for everything!

Do the private inspectors not have professional indemnity insurance? The incompetence/fraud is still with the professionals. 

Chandler85

I don't get it.  Leaseholders pay for the maintenance anyway through service charges and sinking funds, as already mentioned.

They would have to pay for Asbestos (previously mentioned) to be remove when necessary, which at the time was ok to put everywhere.  Much like a normal home owner does for their home.  Cladding was put in place (like Asbestos was used) which at the time was deemed to be safe but now isn't, so the leaseholders are in the same way responsible.

The issue seems to be that nowadays, instead of tower blocks being primarily used for Social/ Council Housing, so ultimately the councils were leaseholders and freeholders, so had to pay up, is actually city living in these "fancy" blocks of flats are now owned by a lot of individuals who don't want to have to pay and think everyone else should pay for them.

Surely these are similar issues to the now defunct housing types, Wimpey No Fines etc.  I don't remember the government paying for everyone in these houses to be giving another shiny new one or for it to be repaired.

I feel sorry for them but ultimately it is their responsibility, things change over time, rules change and regulations change.  That is part of life.

Chandler85

So the Housing Act also made some grants available when they were deemed defective.  Not enough to fully fix the homes, but something.  So on that basis, use an act of parliament to make the flats actually worthless until repaired, then offer grants to cover a portion of the costs.  So reduce the bill from 15k to £10k.