Unsafe building cladding - who should pay?

Soldato
Joined
22 Nov 2006
Posts
23,304
Would the bank even repossess in these circumstances? If the asset is essentially worth £0 (no one is going to buy it), and by repossessing surely they would become liable for the costs?

Not sure the bank would want to be lumbered with a load of flats which are worth nothing and they can't sell.

Aye iirc there were several similar instances at the time, another one was the post WW2 prefabs that were tried near Milton Keynes (from memory) that were basically rows of bungalows made out of a cardboard based material and had to be put out of use in a fairly major hurry after what should have been a minor fire went through a block in a matter of minutes.


the problem is a lot of these buildings have people who bought their flat with a leasehold, if they leave they're without a home and still on the hook for the mortgage, but because they're leasehold they can't refuse to pay things like the "maintenance" fees or shared costs for the fire patrols.
It's why some of the people are ending up letting their houses be repossessed, they can't afford to pay the mortgage and the other fees so unfortunately for some the only option is to write off probably the most expensive thing they've ever bought, and potentially go bankrupt in the process.

If they can't pay they can't pay. I can't see them ever getting the money out of them. These aren't wealthy people. It's also going to be a PR disaster for whoever tries to force them out.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
6 Oct 2004
Posts
18,302
Location
Birmingham
Not sure the bank would want to be lumbered with a load of flats which are worth nothing and they can't sell.

Yeah, this is what I was wondering - you'd think it would be in their best interest to "pause" the mortgages or something, to give the owners a chance to pay for the repairs. Otherwise they could potentially end up stuck with tens (hundreds?) of empty flats that nobody wants, along with also having to pay for the repairs themselves?
 
Soldato
Joined
22 Jan 2014
Posts
3,808
Yeah, this is what I was wondering - you'd think it would be in their best interest to "pause" the mortgages or something, to give the owners a chance to pay for the repairs. Otherwise they could potentially end up stuck with tens (hundreds?) of empty flats that nobody wants, along with also having to pay for the repairs themselves?
I suspect it's a long play by the banks? They know that in the long run, if they have lots and lots and lots of properties that are sitting empty because of the cladding issue, the government may well bail them out with the costs of the cladding work to ensure those properties get made available again.
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Mar 2010
Posts
14,359
Location
5 degrees starboard
In answer to the OP, the person or organisation that specified the material. Next the person or organisation responsible for checking the design for regulatory and fire approval. Both should be qualified chartered organisations with professional indemnity insurance .
 
Soldato
Joined
20 Oct 2002
Posts
17,854
Location
London
I see no reason why the government should have to stump up. Government money = taxpayers money and I see no viable reason why we should be paying for scummy housebuilders like Persimmon and their ilk to get off scot free with something as disgusting as this. It goes to show what a huge moral black hole our country is in when this is even up for discussion! Individuals that bought properties in good faith are being bankrupted and made homeless due to abject failures across the board and we're letting them be forced to pay? What planet are we on people? :mad: :confused: :(

Not only should the housebuilders pay for the repairs, but they should be put in prison. Hung out to dry. God, this situation makes me so angry I think if I were directly affected I probably would have been well into the throes of committing some sort of 'direct action' against the housebuilders responsible (and hence would probably be in prison anyway). It's so utterly disgusting :mad: :(

As a potential FTB, we would never consider leasehold. Ever.
 
Soldato
Joined
20 Oct 2004
Posts
13,059
Location
Nottingham
Each case is possibly different so it's difficult to say really. In the case where an architect has specified a product in good faith based on manufacturers literature and details and it's found that the product doesn't actually perform to the claims of the literature, then I believe the manufacturer should bare the cost of providing a product that does.

But there will be cases of incorrect specification, bad detailing, bad workmanship and poor monitoring and
It's proving where the gap is that's the issue and insurance companies would tie this up in legals for a decades.
 
Associate
Joined
1 Mar 2004
Posts
1,987
Location
Warwickshire
I certainly don't think the government (taxpayer) should pay - the costs should fall on the owners.
If there is any justification for those costs to be pursued from the builder/installers en masse, then the government should look to put a mechanism/legal framework in place to facilitate this more easily.
 
Soldato
Joined
29 May 2005
Posts
4,896
I think the government and the industry need to set up some kind of compensation fund to help out these poor leaseholders. And the government should go after the manufacturers of the cladding and the architects who specified them with full force. Get money from them and put some people in jail for it.

of course each leaseholder and freeholder of the properties must share the burden. But 20k falling on the leaseholder alone with nothing for the freeholder is scandalous as the freeholder is most likely the people who developed the property and made commercial decision at the tim to go with cheap as opposed to something that cost £10/m2 more that is safe.

Government spent billions bailing out banks and airlines, they should setup a fund to help real people. The money can be tied to a portion of the equity of the property so that when the leaseholder sells the property then tax payer gets their money back.
 
Soldato
Joined
6 Oct 2004
Posts
18,302
Location
Birmingham
I certainly don't think the government (taxpayer) should pay - the costs should fall on the owners.

Why? Imagine you've just spent £300k on a new build. Turns out the plasterboard walls are full of asbestos, but this wasn't flagged by the builders or in any surveys because the manufacturers falsified the materials spec sheet. Do you think you should be liable to have it all safely removed and replaced? What's the difference here?
 
Associate
Joined
30 Sep 2008
Posts
2,033
I think the government and the industry need to set up some kind of compensation fund to help out these poor leaseholders. And the government should go after the manufacturers of the cladding and the architects who specified them with full force. Get money from them and put some people in jail for it.

of course each leaseholder and freeholder of the properties must share the burden. But 20k falling on the leaseholder alone with nothing for the freeholder is scandalous as the freeholder is most likely the people who developed the property and made commercial decision at the tim to go with cheap as opposed to something that cost £10/m2 more that is safe.

Government spent billions bailing out banks and airlines, they should setup a fund to help real people. The money can be tied to a portion of the equity of the property so that when the leaseholder sells the property then tax payer gets their money back.

This. Would be nice if we could hold them to account. Want to file for bankruptcy? Fine, but we'll make sure you're barred from holding directorships for the next decade and start legal proceedings that may result in jail time. That won't happen, never does. The longer it goes on, the less people care. Everyone is passing the buck.

Though a fund will never end up being used. Look at Windrush, almost nothing of that has been handed out and some of the people have died since.
Same with Gov housing upgrade grants, because it's too complex for builders to get involved and so not worth the time. Looks nice for the elections though.
 
Soldato
Joined
29 May 2005
Posts
4,896
Though a fund will never end up being used. Look at Windrush, almost nothing of that has been handed out and some of the people have died since.
Same with Gov housing upgrade grants, because it's too complex for builders to get involved and so not worth the time. Looks nice for the elections though.
i think you might be right, the red tape will be horrendous.

but people need to go to jail for this. it is one of the biggest injustice of current time in this country.
 
Soldato
Joined
29 May 2005
Posts
4,896
Why? Imagine you've just spent £300k on a new build. Turns out the plasterboard walls are full of asbestos, but this wasn't flagged by the builders or in any surveys because the manufacturers falsified the materials spec sheet. Do you think you should be liable to have it all safely removed and replaced? What's the difference here?
i think the post was arguing that if tax payer picks up the full bill, then all it benefits are effectively property owners.

I dont think tax payer should be liable for all the cost, and certain property owners (leaseholders, freeholders) should be liable for some of the cost. the % is up for debate. I think if any tax payer going into this need to be linked to some kind of equity of the property and with the upcoming leasehold reform (abolishing marriage fee), it would work well.

I think the below would be workable
1) a standardised formular to aportion cost of replacement between freeholder and leaseholders. if freeholder try to go bankrupt over the cost, then they automatically forfiet the freehold to the leaseholders. - need new legislation and need leashold reform to take place at the same time to abolish marriage fee and stream line leasehold extension process and cost with government set costs
2) with the above, a government back sinking fund for relief can be automatically sought at a say 50% cost of the total repair which is linked to the equity of the property based on the market value of the property having been remediated. the affected property cannot be sold within 1year of application of this fund.
3) additional finance can be applied through retail banks by government backed loans to leaseholders or freeholders upto a further 25% of the cost. the borrowing will be means tested and based on affordability and term will be 5-10yrs depend on circumstances and interest rate at BoE base rate or 0% should it ever fall below that.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
24 Sep 2005
Posts
35,487
This is horrible situation for those subject to it, seems brutally unfair that tenants should have to pay for someone else having not done their job properly. I really sympathise. Particularly since it's often people who are unable to afford a house... and then they get this bull****!!!

I particularly dislike the idea that a company is then benefitting from making the cladding repairs.

I think it such repairs should be paid out of the public purse and then those responsible held account by whatever law can be thrown on them.
 
Soldato
Joined
21 Jan 2010
Posts
21,950
Are you referring to renters?
A lot of these affected places fall into starter home category and came with H2B incentives and/or low deposit options.

Of course if he meant renters he is incorrect as they wouldn't pay (unless they loved the price and the LL passed on the cost).
 
Associate
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
994
There are no legitimate arguments that the leaseholders of these properties should be forced to pay. It'd be pointless anyway because I doubt the vast majority of them can afford the >£1k/month uplift in service charges (for building insurance and fire safety measures) plus the lump sums of up to £70k (highest I've heard of) being demanded of them.

Compare a new build leasehold purchase against a new car. Would you expect to pay for a product recall on safety grounds? It's absolutely insane that a leasehold property purchase has less consumer protection than your average every day household appliance!

The hierarchy of who pays should IMO be something like this:

Manufacturer of cladding -> House builder -> Freeholder (who often like to claim they're necessary custodians of these properties) -> Government

At the end of the day this scandal is ruining peoples lives through no fault of their own - there have been suicides (or at least attempts) linked to this.
 
Soldato
Joined
13 Aug 2004
Posts
8,324
Location
England
The claddings have been installed in recent times and documentation will be in place to state safety precautions, installation methods etc.
There's cases where the manufacturers (or their employees) have admitted to lying, in that type of case the manufacturer should be held partly or fully responsible. If the cladding is unsafe because of the installation method then that's the developers fault and they should be liable.
In no shape or form should the owners of the flats be held liable for this. They've been sold unsafe homes, it is provable and practicable to locate who is responsible.

It's on a par with some of the tower blocks built in the 50's and 60's where they found that rubbish had been used to fill gaps in the structure (iirc discovered after a gas explosion that should have been a relatively minor thing caused an entire section of one to collapse).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronan_Point

[edit] just seen it's also been posted above with a video.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom