Cladding of a combustible nature

terzinho86 - thinking further about this, if the lender's approach is to incorporate all buildings over 18m having their wall systems tested (even those completely without cladding), then I think we stand to see a complete slow down in the mortgage market for those types of properties. Our building was constructed in 2013 so the wall specification information should be available. But what of those buildings made decades ago where there will be limited information about whats behind those brick walls?

Only last weekend that hotel in Eastbourne went up in flames. It was a listed building and a brick construction but the inside was clearly combustible. Where do Lenders/MHCLG draw the line?

Surely it is to take reasonable precautions as to what may or may not be very combustible aka ACM and HPL cladding.

hi terzinho86 - I've never heard of rainscreen brick cladding before but as I understand it, our building is standard masonry with two leaves of brick/concrete. The MHCLG statement is required by virtue of the height of the building. This is has caused the hold up and as you rightly point out, could cause a complete slow down in the mortgage market on essentially 'safe' buildings of limited combustibility.

It is beggars belief that if a building is 1cm under 18m then Lenders would deem the property safe. The listed hotel in Eastbourne - The Claremont that burned down at the weekend was 4 stories high but they failed to contain the fire. Nevertheless, a lender would seemingly have no issues lending simply because it is below 18m.

I will keep the thread updated on my progress with L&Q. The flat is vacant and is costing us £900pcm to keep vacant. I complained to L&Q on 6th November and have heard nothing. They aren't even following their own complaints procedure i.e response within ten working days. L&Q have 90,000+ homes and I am afraid I am being caught up in a watershed moment. I have made it clear to them that all I need is the wall specification and I can instruct the independent fire engineer to inspect the building myself. L&Q can't do this all by themselves, there has to be an independent person go to check. It is frightening that they are so ill-equipped and unprofessional. Let's not forget that the expert advice note was issued in December 2018. It is only because lenders have taken a new stance that building owners/landlords are now having to consider it.

We are stuck in this crisis at the moment and its a nightmare. My strong advice to anyone buying a flat at the moment is to not buy a flat that has not been fully fire checked and approved. Otherwise you are potentially dropping into a money pit situation.

We bought a flat in Leeds last September and currently rent it out. The block was built in 2006 and is in a lovely situation but a fire safety audit that took place last month revealed issues with cladding (not the same as Grenfell so no fund to replace available), wooden balconies and insulation. The leaseholders were told that unless a waking watch was put in place and a new fire alarm system installed that the building would have to be closed. The waking watch is now costing £4.5k a month and it is guesstimated based on similar issues in other nearby blocks that the cost by the time all the remedial work is done will run to £20-£30k per leasehold. Individual leaseholders are expected to pay rather than main leaseholder. Whats worse is that it was also concluded that the block did not reach the then fire safety standards when originally built. Its all a nightmare. We are all expected to pay via our service charges being raised.

We are lucky in that we own the place in full but many people rely on mortgages. In the meantime the apartments are virtually unsellable - the service charges will rise exponentially, mortgage companies and insurance companies wont touch and solicitors are advising buyers against purchasing.

There is a lobby group that I would urge anyone else in this situation to keep in contact with https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/insight/insight/end-our-cladding-scandal-campaign-61166