Well you referenced austerity being a factor - I joined them together
Anyhow, it is unfortunate for the owners - the costs are crazy.
Unsafe building cladding - who should pay?
- Thread starter silvagti
- Start date
Well you referenced austerity being a factor - I joined them together
Anyhow, it is unfortunate for the owners - the costs are crazy.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/surveyor-finds-scots-new-builds-risky-as-grenfell-70rrfv32c
Sorry it is the Times, but still going on in Scotland.
Sorry it is the Times, but still going on in Scotland.
Not sure the bank would want to be lumbered with a load of flats which are worth nothing and they can't sell.
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:
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
- 3,862
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.
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 .
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? 
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
As a potential FTB, we would never consider leasehold. Ever.
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
As a potential FTB, we would never consider leasehold. Ever.
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.
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
- 2,005
- 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Are you referring to renters?
Deleted User 298457
Deleted User 298457
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).
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.
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
- 8,369
- 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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronan_Point
[edit] just seen it's also been posted above with a video.
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronan_Point
[edit] just seen it's also been posted above with a video.
Last edited: