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

coypondboy

Any sign of when the amendment will be debated and voted on expect it to be done before March 3 budget otherwise might mess up Mr Sunak's calculations if vote goes against them and freeholders on hook for it.  I imagine plenty of coverage in the papers once has vote has been done.

annetheman

coypondboy said:

Any sign of when the amendment will be debated and voted on expect it to be done before March 3 budget otherwise might mess up Mr Sunak's calculations if vote goes against them and freeholders on hook for it.  I imagine plenty of coverage in the papers once has vote has been done.

YES!!!!!

Update: Labour are forcing a vote on this on MONDAY - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/uk/labour-launches-bid-save-residents-ruinous-cladding-costs/
Sarah Jones MP, who has brought the motion forward (as announced on LBC this morning by Keir Starmer) has said:
"The Government’s handling of the cladding crisis has lacked any sense of grip or urgency. We have deep concerns that people are being put at risk, trapped in flammable buildings for a third lockdown, with leaseholders placed in an impossible position.

Ministers promised over 15 times that cladding costs wouldn't be passed on to leaseholders, but have broken their promises. Labour has tabled more amendments to the #FireSafetyBill to lock into law the principle that leaseholders are protected from unfair fire safety costs.

Labour is supportive of other amendments which help achieve this goal. The amendment tabled by McPartland and Smith provides welcome clarity on the specific costs that would be prevented from being passed on to leaseholders, but Labour has sought to go further.

As currently drafted, the McPartland and Smith amendment would not have covered blocks like Grenfell - where flammable cladding has been added at some stage following the building of the block. It only applies to defects in the original design of buildings.

The Grenfell Tower was built in the 1970s, but the flammable cladding was added in 2017. Our amendment would ensure that the cost of fire safety problems from refurbishment jobs, like the cladding on the Grenfell tower, cannot be passed on to leaseholders.

Labour’s amendments also include new clauses so that the Bill protects leaseholders from the day it comes into law, instead of an unknown date in the future.

And Labour's amendments ensure that if the Fire Safety Order is extended in the future, the Secretary of State must publish an analysis of the financial implications for leaseholders."

Personally, I hope they do not divert support for the McPartland Amendment, but she has reiterated they will vote for it. This forced vote is in addition.

Monday is the big day - keep in your diary and watch on parliament.tv!

coypondboy

Fingers crossed but do not hold much hope with the Tories 80 seat majority and main backers the housing industry but hopefully will get lots of press which will put more presssure on the chancellor who apparently wants a loan system inroduced with repayments made by leaseholders through the service charge but at a low rate of interest and underwritten by us the taxpayer. will find out on 3rd March in the budget unless leaked sooner

annetheman

coypondboy said:

Fingers crossed but do not hold much hope with the Tories 80 seat majority and main backers the housing industry but hopefully will get lots of press which will put more presssure on the chancellor who apparently wants a loan system inroduced with repayments made by leaseholders through the service charge but at a low rate of interest and underwritten by us the taxpayer. will find out on 3rd March in the budget unless leaked sooner

The numbers are there for the McPartland amendment, which is why most CAGs still want them to back it given the majority. Tories will not vote for Labour's amendment for no other reason than it's Labour's amendment. Truly, it is preferential for Leaseholders as the McP doesn't cover refurb'd buildings.
But it's all a political game isn't it, at least until the next inevitable deadly tower fire. I feel terrible saying this but it has to happen for anything to be done with any urgency.

annetheman

UPDATE
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/30m-waking-watch-relief-fund-now-open-for-applications
MHCLG opens the Waking Watch "Relief" Fund. On a Sunday. With spelling mistakes galore. 

The day before Labour forces a vote on the woeful progress on building safety from govt 3.5 years post Grenfell, but that's just a coincidence, probably.

Key points:

• As we have come to expect, it is inadequate.
• Likely only to cover a fraction of waking watch in major cities outlined in the statement ONLY - expect breakdowns in the coming days.
• If your building is not in any of those cities, tough.
• Like the Cladding fund, no risk-based prioritisation for high-risk buildings or buildings that have had WW for longer, or proportionately higher costs, or any sort of order to it at all.
• First come first served. If you're lucky enough to live in those cities only.
• Only building management/freeholders can apply. 
• If they don't do it quick enough, tough.

There is no consultation on waking watch. If the Fire Service orders a building to have it, they must comply or evacuate immediately. Some have had it for years and the average cost is £331 per leaseholder per month, according to MHCLG's own figures; on top of increased insurance and other fire safety-related costs. EXCLUDING the remediation bill, of course, that one's a good 10,000x more.
--

Personal opinion, waking watch should be banned. No evidence it works; they do not fight fires, nor can they see a fire that starts in an individual flat (as most do), since they only patrol corridors. They are not required to do any training - cleaning companies offer waking watch.
Utterly pointless, besides shifting liability to a third party for building managers.

Save the taxpayers £30 million and get rid of this nonsense.

edit: it doesn't even cover waking watch lol you couldn't make it up

annetheman

BREAKING

Labour's motion "Opposition Day Debate/motion on cladding and building safety (link)"

HAS PASSED 262:0 - UNANIMOUSLY. TORIES ABSTAINED AS EXPECTED.

Very important points raised from MPs of ALL parties in support of leaseholders NOT paying to bail out developers that didn't follow regs and built without fire breakers, cavity barriers and other building safety measures, and for shoddy regulations that allowed flammable materials to be placed on buildings and signed off as safe.

The vote is not binding, the govt can still do what they want, however this is a hugely symbolic victory which indicates the McPartland Amendment WILL very likely receive the votes it needs when it eventually comes to a vote.

Labour's amendment is far, far more comprehensive, as it covers building refurbishments that have caused fire safety issues (as was the case at Grenfell) rather than just the original build defects - but the Tories will never vote for it due to party protocol and I'm sure leaseholders will take any help they can get from anywhere!

CAGs mentioned numerous times for all the amazing work they have done. Incredible people. 

Keep writing to your MPs, everyone, it's not over until McPartland passes!

And arguably until leasehold reform but I will be a fossil by then.

annetheman

The money is coming for leaseholders according the the DailyMail:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9213613/amp/Ministers-stump-cladding-cash-quell-Tory-rebellion.html#click=https://t.co/KGiOIYp0Gs
--

Personal opinion: I wouldn't agree to touch the money or associated contracts without amendment to the Fire Safety Bill that ensures leaseholders cannot be passed on remediation and interim costs by law.

Why? The first contracts associated with Building Safety Fund have a clause in them which makes building owners agree that they will not seek funding from anywhere other than leaseholders for anything it doesn't cover. And we know that the BSF doesn't cover anything except cladding removal, even though cladding removal is NOT the most common remedial work requires (lack of firebreaks followed by flammable insulation in more buildings than flammable cladding).

annetheman

Update

Even developers support the developer levy to contribute to the building safety remediation - it is predicted the loans for building owners will be announced soon - but without legislation to ensure they cannot be recouped from leaseholders, effectively plunging millions into negative equity and making the flats even more unsell-able, this idea will be a disaster.

Progress on this by the govt has been utterly dismal, and they are still "working" on "solutions". Really embarrassing News night appearance by a Tory MP who is virtually the only one who is trying to defend the indefensible available here [from 29:00].

annetheman

BIG UPDATE TODAY EXPECTED FROM ROBERT JENRICK.

We expect him to anonunce £5 billion to remove cladding (only) from buildings aobve 18m.

Quick summary:

• Most buildings caught up in the cladding scandal and the building safety scandal are <18m and >11m - between 3 and 6 storeys.
• This represents roughly 11,000 buildings per MHCLG's own data, as opposed to less than 2,000 <18m.
• Most of these buildings have other fire safety defects, with compliant cladding and insulation.
• Vast majority of buildings have missing or incorrectly installed fire breaks as primary fire safety issue, exacerbating spread of fire and hot gas and posing serious risk to life.
• The fund will not cover any interim measures such as sprinklers (widely called for in lieu of expensive remediation, given that no deaths have occured in buildings with sprinklers installed - a far lower cost alternative to ripping external walls apart and rebuilding, but the govt still won't listen to experts).
• Waking watch fund does not cover waking watch, only alarms.
• Recently-installed alarms, mandated by the NFCC, have been deemed inadequate and waking watch resumed in several buildings.

Tory paper the Spectator published its expose on the fact govt is and has been aware of the other fire safety issues for many years and did not act:

Read the full article to find out how the govt is complicit, if anyone still has any doubt: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/six-ways-the-state-failed-to-prevent-the-cladding-crisis

We are also expecting govt complicity to be revealed in module 6 of the Grenfell inquiry in the coming weeks. A mess this big isn't just down to industry - regulatory failures let it happen.

Again, leaseholder CAGs are not calling for taxpayer funds to fix this. They are calling for a robust and comprehensive developer levy to pay to fix this (i.e. not a token gesture). Govt still has not announced anything on a levy that may harm the multi billion £ profits of their favourite party donors.

I often sit and wonder: why could that be?

Will update this thread once Dodgy Bob Jenrick has announced his bumfluff fund that will do nothing for most whilst sinking taxpayer funds into bailing out the party donors this afternoon.

Stay tuned....

annetheman

Costs are spiraling. 62.5% face a total bill of above £30,000 and more than 15% think their bill will exceed £100,000.

41.7% have already been served a Section 20 notice and 17.2% have begun exploring bankruptcy

https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/insight/what-does-inside-housings-survey-of-leaseholders-impacted-by-the-cladding-crisis-show-69476

This is urgent, urgent, urgent. First time MSE Martin has mentioned it today, on his Twitter. I'm surprised he hasn't mentioned it more e.g. on his show.

Personal opinion: the end payout/compensation etc will be much bigger than PPI. It will take a while but it will happen.