You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Fire safety cost protection for residents rejected
May 8 2021 7.44am

Fire safety cost protection for residents rejected

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 1 of 2 1 2 > Last

 

View croydon proud's Profile croydon proud Flag Any european country i fancy! 23 Mar 21 4.47pm Send a Private Message to croydon proud Add croydon proud as a friend

"MPs have rejected a move to give more protections to leaseholders and tenants in England from footing the bill for fire safety work on buildings.They opposed an attempt by peers to force the government to stump up the cash and recover it from developers.Ministers said the proposal was unworkable and would lead to further delays in making buildings safe. Labour said the government had brokenits promises and "it is blameless people who will pay the price"- taken from the bbc. So you scrape the shekles together over years , probably living at home with folks, finally get a deposit, buy a flat with cladding that has passed building regs, only to be told its unsafe and you have to pay for its removal, i have heard some are up to 70k, why oh why aren"t the building company not made to do it at their expense? Couldn"t possibly be that they are all big CONservative donors could it?

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Badger11's Profile Badger11 Flag Beckenham 23 Mar 21 5.32pm Send a Private Message to Badger11 Add Badger11 as a friend

Question and I don't know the answer, it relates to private homes.

Where the government is funding the removal of cladding does that mean the freeholder surrenders the lease?

Example Dodgy Landlord Corp owns the freehold of a block of flats and refuses to foot the bill and dumps it on the leaseholders. The taxpayer fully or partly funds the repairs with the leaseholder. Does the taxpayer or the leaseholder now get the freehold if not why not?

 


One more point

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View croydon proud's Profile croydon proud Flag Any european country i fancy! 23 Mar 21 9.32pm Send a Private Message to croydon proud Add croydon proud as a friend

Originally posted by Badger11

Question and I don't know the answer, it relates to private homes.

Where the government is funding the removal of cladding does that mean the freeholder surrenders the lease?

Example Dodgy Landlord Corp owns the freehold of a block of flats and refuses to foot the bill and dumps it on the leaseholders. The taxpayer fully or partly funds the repairs with the leaseholder. Does the taxpayer or the leaseholder now get the freehold if not why not?

No idea Badger, its just that if i bought a flat, and suddenly got a 70k bill to do the unsafe cladding, i would expect the builder to do it free, as it was unsafe and unfit for purpose, i got two flats and am lucky they dont have cladding, but if they did and i got the bill to replace it, i would be fuming!you have to remember most of these blocks are built by big building companies, who arent short of a few shekles, so they should be made to pay in my opinion. Imagine if one of your kids saved up for years, bought a flat, then gets told its unsafe and has to pay 70k to make it safe, and in the meantime must pay for the 24 hour fire guard sleeping in the broom cupboard, what would you think?

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View croydon proud's Profile croydon proud Flag Any european country i fancy! 23 Mar 21 9.35pm Send a Private Message to croydon proud Add croydon proud as a friend

Originally posted by Badger11

Question and I don't know the answer, it relates to private homes.

Where the government is funding the removal of cladding does that mean the freeholder surrenders the lease?

Example Dodgy Landlord Corp owns the freehold of a block of flats and refuses to foot the bill and dumps it on the leaseholders. The taxpayer fully or partly funds the repairs with the leaseholder. Does the taxpayer or the leaseholder now get the freehold if not why not?

I would think the dodgy landlord corpwho owns the property block should sue the builder that they bought the block off, not pass it on to the individuals who own the actual flats.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View martin2412's Profile martin2412 Flag The Big Wide World 23 Mar 21 10.39pm Send a Private Message to martin2412 Add martin2412 as a friend

Originally posted by croydon proud

I would think the dodgy landlord corpwho owns the property block should sue the builder that they bought the block off, not pass it on to the individuals who own the actual flats.

And then the builder (who probably bought it in good faith) needs to sue the architect who specified it, the architect sues the cladding supplier, who then sues the manufacturer.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Badger11's Profile Badger11 Flag Beckenham 24 Mar 21 7.18am Send a Private Message to Badger11 Add Badger11 as a friend

Just making the point the taxpayer should not foot the bill if the Freeholder is not the tenant unless we get something in return e.g. the freehold.

I would then sell the freehold to the tenants using the fair formula something like 2-3k per flat.

 


One more point

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Matov's Profile Matov Flag 24 Mar 21 8.36am Send a Private Message to Matov Add Matov as a friend

Our entire system of leaseholds and so on is an absolute disgrace. Needs completely reforming from top to bottom.

But this wider issue leads directly back to Grenfall. And our entire political hierarchy are up to their necks in s*** on that one.

 


In 1967, when Polish mercenary Rafal Ganowicz was asked what it felt like to take human life, replied: "I wouldn't know, I've only ever killed communists."

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Badger11's Profile Badger11 Flag Beckenham 24 Mar 21 9.41am Send a Private Message to Badger11 Add Badger11 as a friend

Originally posted by Matov

Our entire system of leaseholds and so on is an absolute disgrace. Needs completely reforming from top to bottom.

But this wider issue leads directly back to Grenfall. And our entire political hierarchy are up to their necks in s*** on that one.

Agreed.

 


One more point

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Eaglecoops's Profile Eaglecoops Flag CR3 24 Mar 21 10.14am Send a Private Message to Eaglecoops Add Eaglecoops as a friend

Originally posted by Matov

Our entire system of leaseholds and so on is an absolute disgrace. Needs completely reforming from top to bottom.

But this wider issue leads directly back to Grenfall. And our entire political hierarchy are up to their necks in s*** on that one.

The issue for the government is that all building work has to pass building regulations and that is a Local Authority responsibility. So, whether you sue the developer who built it, the Architect who designed it, the manufacturer who produced it, or British Standards for approving the product, the Local Authority building control ultimately decides whether the development goes ahead and approves it stage by stage.

No doubt there will be law suits and counter suits flying left right and centre and ultimately the only winners will be the lawyers. The blame should really be shared and the same with regard to the cost of replacements. Everyone with an involvement should carry the can and every professional carries professional indemnity cover so there is no reason why this entire cost cannot be reasonably shared around.

The one group that should not be paying are the owners.

The leasehold system is another matter entirely and is a necessary evil because of the nature of what a freehold is. I agree it should be reformed and much work has already been done on this. Whether they totally resolve the issues is up for debate but I think it is harsh to describe the whole system as a disgrace.

With regard to buying leasehold property too many people take insufficient advice when they buy and few actually read the lease at all believing that they now own their own home and nothing ill can come of it. There was a shocking period around the 70s, 80s when onerous lease clauses were all the rage and you really have to be careful when you look at these leases for items such as rising ground rents and obscure management companies running the building.

If in doubt get proper advice. If still in doubt buy a freehold rather than leasehold.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Badger11's Profile Badger11 Flag Beckenham 24 Mar 21 10.35am Send a Private Message to Badger11 Add Badger11 as a friend

Many of the guilty parties have gone bust to protect themselves so the leaseholders have no one to sue.

Leaseholding for a block of flats makes sense, who owns the communal areas and is responsible for their upkeep?

I have a leasehold but I also own a share of the freehold as does each of the other flats.

This is what needs to happen if the freeholder can't or wont pay for the repairs. Force them out of the equation and sell the freehold at a fair price to the flat owners.

 


One more point

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Matov's Profile Matov Flag 24 Mar 21 10.40am Send a Private Message to Matov Add Matov as a friend

Only ever seen the most pertinent question about that cladding asked the once, by the head of a housing association up in Norwich.

Why was the cladding safe one day and then not the next?

The entire issue is around why that cladding received the necessary safety certificate.

Realised something was seriously afoot with the entire issue when they spent so much time trying to attack the Fire Brigade, including raising the issue of 'racism. Pure diversionary tactics. No cladding on Grenfall, no tragedy. Its that simple.

Both sides of the political debate have some serious questions to answer and it is clear both want the issue brushed under the carpet.

 


In 1967, when Polish mercenary Rafal Ganowicz was asked what it felt like to take human life, replied: "I wouldn't know, I've only ever killed communists."

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Eaglecoops's Profile Eaglecoops Flag CR3 24 Mar 21 10.52am Send a Private Message to Eaglecoops Add Eaglecoops as a friend

Originally posted by Badger11

Many of the guilty parties have gone bust to protect themselves so the leaseholders have no one to sue.

Leaseholding for a block of flats makes sense, who owns the communal areas and is responsible for their upkeep?

I have a leasehold but I also own a share of the freehold as does each of the other flats.

This is what needs to happen if the freeholder can't or wont pay for the repairs. Force them out of the equation and sell the freehold at a fair price to the flat owners.

Professional indemnity covers periods way after companies close down so certainly, that side of things is covered off so anyone with a professional involvement cannot absolve responsibility. Yes, the manufacturers could probably get away with a lot by closing down but there are so many others to go after.

Leasehold enfranchisement is open to any leaseholders who choose to. Unfortunately getting sufficient numbers of leaseholders to agree to buying the freehold is difficult, sometimes impossible. You and your fellow leaseholders have done the sensible thing by buying and managing your own block.

There is no easy answer to this as often the freeholder is not the original developer and has bought the freehold years after the property was built so they actually had no input into to the development whatsoever. They effectively buy a small income stream in terms of the annual ground rents and the hope of lease extension fees over the ensuing years.

In these circumstances it would be as unfair to penalise the freeholder as if it would be the lessee.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 1 of 2 1 2 > Last

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Fire safety cost protection for residents rejected