Government to change policy on dangerous cladding replacement?

princeofpounds

Don't think anyone has posted about this yet (forgive me if they have)...

Interesting to see today that Michael Gove is considering putting forward proposals that would shift the cost burden from leaseholders to (presumably?) government and thereby the general population.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59216211

On the one hand, it's easy to be sympathetic with the owners of properties which are now understood to be defective, as there wasn't realistically a way they could have protected themselves in advance.

On the other hand, everyone else doesn't get a bail-out when they buy properties and find out a problem later. And there is a huge portion of the working population who don't even own properties and will be ultimately paying for this.

I wonder if we will see anything actually come out by the Christmas 'deadline' - those civil servants aren't known for working with urgency.

Countrysider

A lot of the 1 bed flats in city centres are BTL-owned (it seemed to be the primary market for these places) and it will be an early Christmas gift to Labour if the government include investors in their bailout plans. 

Laggerwarrior1

I sense that on this very emotive problem that everyone affected by this feels let down at every turn!
The Governments either past or present are a little lost with catching up on Building companies and Developers in this Sector due to loopholes and lax Regulations, checks & balances over years in the industry.
However throughout all this time Insurance companies have raked in BILLIONS underwriting a variety of products for Businesses and owner occupiers alike be it Public Liability, Indemnity, Home Insurance to list just a few. So while the Insurance industry sat back investing these Billions making even more billions year on year the ordinary punter is left in a minefield of black holes post Grenfell seeing their property plummet in value, can’t get a mortgage on it or can’t raise funds to have this rectified, while sitting in a dangerous tinderbox.
I feel there is a duty of care on the Insurance Industry to step up and step in here to setup a fund regulated in parallel by Government to sort this out quickly. 

It will ease a vast majority of people’s concerns sleepless nights as well as create employment at the same time. As long as the mistakes are learned and the repairs and replacement is done properly, they will recoup the “investment” in the long term.

BarelySentientAI

I think you're confused about how insurance works.

Laggerwarrior1

How so?
What’s the difference between Taxing Big Oil & Gas Businesses when they make billions while they pollute the planet and putting a levy or tax on Insurance Companies to help sort this out, after all they have profited hand over fist from this sort of issue and washed their hands when Joe Public try to make a claim. Squirming out of it by clouding the issue or dismissing the claim due to a loophole.
Don’t get me wrong I’m not saying Insurance Companies should honour the individual claims, I’m proposing hitting them on mass as an Industry for not stepping up. Look at the Water Industry for example, we get the brunt of their incompetence, polluting our waterways while playing fast and loose with the rules and paying themselves huge bonuses at the same time, obscene.

user1977

Laggerwarrior1 said:

Don’t get me wrong I’m not saying Insurance Companies should honour the individual claims, I’m proposing hitting them on mass as an Industry for not stepping up. Look at the Water Industry for example, we get the brunt of their incompetence, polluting our waterways while playing fast and loose with the rules and paying themselves huge bonuses at the same time, obscene.

Your comparison isn't making any sense. The water companies are actually responsible for the waste water being (not) treated. The insurers aren't responsible for the cladding.

BarelySentientAI

Insurance is not there to enforce planning standards.
Insurance is not there to replace building control.
Insurance is not there to decide whether construction materials are safe.
Insurance is not there to choose the training of the Fire Service.

Insurance should be there to honour individual claims whether they are covered by the relevant policy.  And, they almost always do.

Most complaints about "squirming out of it" actually end being due the customer thinking they were buying one thing but instead, usually because they wanted a cheaper price, buying something that didn't actually cover the incident.

What you've done is pick a random industry that you think makes too much profit and decided to blame something unrelated on them.

There is one plausible change that would actually be sensible and not some misguided attempt to 'punish' a company because you think they are rich.  Something to address the block insurance market, similar to the subsidence stuff, that ensures a sensible continuity of insurance at an appropriate price - as the widespread building defects are making those policies expensive (because insurers have had to - and have a high risk of having to again - pay out massive amounts in claims that you think they didn't). 

Laggerwarrior1

No not directly, but they ‘underwrite’ everything Builders, Developers Corporations, Water You name it, every industry by having Underwriters & Inspectors who “should” be going out and inspecting the businesses in these Industries.
They can’t spot malpractice or poor regulations or be responsible for it but they gave the go ahead in the first place by giving it all a clean bill of health and signing off on the developments, while they charge exorbitant premiums to do so, I say hit them instead of always falling on “Joe public” ending up footing the bill.

BarelySentientAI

Laggerwarrior1 said:

No not directly, but they ‘underwrite’ everything Builders, Developers Corporations, Water You name it, every industry by having Underwriters & Inspectors who “should” be going out and inspecting the businesses in these Industries.
They can’t spot malpractice or poor regulations or be responsible for it but they gave the go ahead in the first place by giving it all a clean bill of health and signing off on the developments, while they charge exorbitant premiums to do so, I say hit them instead of always falling on “Joe public” ending up footing the bill.

No they shouldn't.

That is planning permission, building control, trading standards, the HSE...

Insurers do not "sign off" developments.

You are arguing against the wrong people based purely on your assessment of their profit margin (which is incidentally an incorrect assessment anyway) and a very strange interpretation of the term "underwrite".

Grumpy_chap

Why has this been resurrected from a tread in 2021 and possible changes that may have been suggested by the Government at that time?
I have not heard anything new on this subject recently by way of definite proposals.  Yes, we had the Grenfell enquiry report and the current Government have said "something must be done quickly" pretty much, but I don't see that anything beyond that has been announced.

molerat

The local authority, the council tax payer, will also be liable as these cladding projects would need building regs / planning permission and the material specifications would have been signed off by the authority.  The insurers could be on the hook for professional indemnity claims but that route would be years in the courts.  But looking at the spider's web of responsibility from the Grenfell report the only winners would be the lawyers as "someone else" was responsible at every stage.