Govt makes haphazard attempt to alleviate some of the blockages in flat sales mess caused by EWS1

annetheman

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-steps-in-to-help-homeowners-caught-up-in-ews1-process
"Mr Jenrick and RICS have agreed that buildings without cladding do not need an EWS1 form, clearing the way for up to nearly 450,000 flat owners to sell, move or remortgage their homes."

This announcement, as it was posted today, doesn't define what "without cladding" means; given that virtually all residential flat buildings have some sort of external wall cladding, we assume "without cladding" means brick cladding.

It's also not clear if buildings with brick cladding that have attachments i.e. balconies will not require EWS1.

Jenrick considers this to have "resolved" the matter for buildings "without cladding" - I despair.

Thoughts, anyone?

theartfullodger

Bozo  only selected people for his cabinet if  they'd do what they're told and support Brex****.  I'd not put Jenrick in charge of a whelk stall.

A strong PM has people who'd argue with them.

The most useless, damaging government of my life (I'm 72) who by their actions, inactions and stupidity have killed more citizens than any other government in my life.

My sympathy for those suffering over cladding, Covid, Grenfell or Brex****.

I had to pay£1400 for an EWS1 form to sell a 2 storey semi. (Lender requirement). Nothing compared to other's suffering.

I'd call them clowns but it ain't funny.

Best wishes to all, regardless of your views.

yllop1101

Owning a flat in a 4 storey block with no 'cladding' or balconies, this comes as such a relief as people were starting to encounter issues remortgaging and selling.
I'm selling at the moment and have been panicking the solicitor may advise my buyer not to proceed without an EWS1 assessment. Hopefully this makes it clear that buildings such as mine do not need them. 

annetheman

yllop1101 said:

Owning a flat in a 4 storey block with no 'cladding' or balconies, this comes as such a relief as people were starting to encounter issues remortgaging and selling.
I'm selling at the moment and have been panicking the solicitor may advise my buyer not to proceed without an EWS1 assessment. Hopefully this makes it clear that buildings such as mine do not need them. 

I hate to sound pessimistic but I doubt it. This - like many other times MHCLG have said they "don't support widespread use of EWS1" - is a very, very, haphazard attempt to put a bandage over a bullet hole. 

UK Finance and the Building Societies Association - representing all large lenders and building societies - have both said they didn't agree this with the govt and have no idea where the 450,000 figure they quoted comes from.

I doubt this will make a difference because behind brick cladding <18m, there could be all sorts of other fire issues that render the flats worthless and lenders know this: 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55030342

They will still continue to ask for it where it isn't required.

And the press release was a shambles, it has been updated 3 times, huge typos everywhere and inaccuracies, Building Safety Minister and Jenrick having to tweet afterwards to say UKF CEO "told me on the phone he agree with this" - absolute mess and this has solved nothing.

annetheman

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ews1-cladding-offer-fails-to-help-nearly-2m-people-jh63qwrx7

So basically everybody realises this announcement was utterly useless and will change nothing. A shallow, uncorroborated PR move. 

Lenders aren’t pretending otherwise, flat sellers/buyers know otherwise and the consensus from all involved is: Jenrick, Pincher, Greenhalgh et al at MHCLG will use this announcement of “agreement with lenders” to attempt to placate the rising chorus of outrage that they still have not taken decisive action and responsibility over this. 

Likely because people have started to realise their “80% have started remediation” schtick has been repeatedly exposed as referring to only 4% of affected buildings in total. 

People are realising the scale of this. 

rachel230

@annetheman you have hit the nail on the head. A useless lot of clueless, headless chickens. And yes - outrage is growing..

GDB2222

When you say that the government should take responsibility for the mess, I suppose that you mean that Taxpayers have to pay to bail you out? Or, everyone should pay higher mortgage interest to pay for this? You can’t really just sweep this under the carpet and pretend that the problem doesn’t exist. If you succeed in selling an unsafe flat to an unsuspecting buyer, that doesn’t make the flat suddenly  safe. It just passes the problem on elsewhere.

annetheman

GDB2222 said:

When you say that the government should take responsibility for the mess, I suppose that you mean that Taxpayers have to pay to bail you out? Or, everyone should pay higher mortgage interest to pay for this? You can’t really just sweep this under the carpet and pretend that the problem doesn’t exist. If you succeed in selling an unsafe flat to an unsuspecting buyer, that doesn’t make the flat suddenly  safe. It just passes the problem on elsewhere.

When you say that the government should take responsibility for the mess, I suppose that you mean that Taxpayers have to pay to bail you out?
You suppose wrong. There are alternative funding solutions that the current MHCLG continue to ignore, cynics conclude it's because they force big party donors (developers donated £11 million to the Tories last year alone) to pay. Many caught up in it support the Australian-style method of remediation funding, where developers of buildings requiring remediation pay a levy on all new building sales, which contributes to a fund that can be used to fund remediation works that cannot be funded by building owners across the country.
Key phrase: building owners - not leaseholders.

The leaseholders who are currently being forced to pay whilst "who pays" is being argued are also taxpayers. The whole thing arose due to the inadequacies of successive govt's regulations since the 80s, hence govt needs to take responsibility - though that doesn't mean they should fund all remediations. Here's a summary for those who don't really understand the issue:

https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/news/news/the-paper-trail-the-failure-of-building-regulations-55445#:~:text=Inside Housing has published The,to the Grenfell Tower disaster.&amp;text=JUST over nine months on,the UK remains in crisis

Link to a nice summary if it's TLDR 

https://twitter.com/PeteApps/status/1298930754567766016

(*edit to add: posting this Twitter thread doesn't work but can DM if anyone wants it*)

"If you succeed in selling an unsafe flat to an unsuspecting buyer, that doesn’t make the flat suddenly  safe. It just passes the problem on elsewhere."
I am not a seller and I totally agree - I discourage any buyer from buying a flat without EWS1 for the same reason.

There are some responsible building owners who have paid for EWS1 and remediation - I am lucky enough to be buying a building where the owner is doing just that - I think its grossly unfair for many who are not as lucky.

Salemicus

Ah yes, the make someone else pay for it ploy. Let's make future development more expensive (because God knows we build too much in this country) so the people responsible for fixing this don't have to dip into their own pockets. Heaven forbid that anyone should have to pay to make their own home safe.

annetheman

Salemicus said:

Ah yes, the make someone else pay for it ploy. Let's make future development more expensive (because God knows we build too much in this country) so the people responsible for fixing this don't have to dip into their own pockets. Heaven forbid that anyone should have to pay to make their own home safe.

I suggest you read the article I posted by way of introduction to the complexity of the issue because this response demonstrates you don't understand at all why this requires central intervention. 

There are multiple stakeholders involved; ultimately by law, building owners have a legal responsibility to remediate.
Building owners can then recoup their cost for doing so using leasehold law, depending on the individual leases.

The problem is where - as is the case in thousands of buildings - most leaseholders cannot afford the amounts billed sent to them by building owners, who also cannot afford to fix their building and are legally responsible for doing so - hence why they are asking for payment from leaseholders - so the building doesn't get fixed.

So we have a situation where nobody can move, remortgage, rent or sell, hundreds of thousands are bankrupt and Grenfell 2.0, 3.0, 4.0 etc happens, one after the other, because the tinderboxes are still tinderboxes.

Insurers won't pay because of warranty limitations or invalidations that have arisen after inspection. Developers won't pay if the building met regs at the time i.e. they did nothing wrong, either - although we have seen in the Grenfell inquiry this week how so many in the developer supply chain manipulate tests in order to do just that. 

Somebody has to pay and MHCLG are considering "all funding options" yet still haven't responded to the option of making developers contribute, too.

You have to ask yourself: why is that? When Barratt's - developer with the highest number of buildings found to require remediation so far - will not go bankrupt contributing 5% of their sales profits, which will work out to tens of millions.
One leaseholder forking out £80,000 by the govt's own estimates - absolutely will. Now times than by 3 million and you have a crisis.

It's a gargantuan issue - thank you for your input but "it's your flat so fix it" just doesn't cut it here, it's far too complicated.

Anyone with a better grasp of the issues have opinions on the announcement?

Salemicus

There's nothing complicated about the fact that the people who should pay for something don't want to pay, and in many cases would struggle to pay. It happens all the time. Yes, some people might even go bankrupt, and it might also lead to a fire sale (no pun intended) of unmortgageable flats to pay the service charges. That's sad for the people involved, but it's no solution to stick some unrelated party with the bill on the grounds that "they can afford it."

"It's your flat so fix it" is a perfect summary of the issue. "It's complicated," as so often, is the whining of a politically powerful special interest that wants to kick up dust to obscure the central truth that the owners of these flats are (1) morally and legally responsible for paying for remediation (2) the ones who will benefit from the work being done. It's much easier to stick politically unpopular developers with a massive bill than to expect to hold people accountable on the leases they've signed, but I'm hopeful that the government will do the right thing and kick dirt into your face.

Can the government help here? Yes, but the last thing it should be doing is subsidising these people. It should be looking for ways to make remedial work cheaper (genuinely cheaper, not just shifting the cost to someone else), find ways to provide quick certification where no work needs doing, and address the shortage of inspectors.