No. I was referring to leasehold flat owners.
Unsafe building cladding - who should pay?
- Thread starter silvagti
- Start date
Ah, leasehold flat owners are people who are unable to afford a house.
Deleted User 298457
Deleted User 298457
You understand 'cladded' flats are typically in the "lower" cost category of housing, right?
Assuming your point is deliberately facetious.
Lower cost housing that isn't cladded flats also exists.
Deleted User 298457
Deleted User 298457
??? You are now just totally missing the point. Can you clarify?
I'm saying that people didn't just buy these flats because it's the only type of housing they could afford.
Deleted User 298457
Deleted User 298457
Well durr, presumably they liked being up high and getting free heating too.
It should not be taxpayers. It should be builders, or insurers (WTF were people insuring for if they're not gonna cover it?), and then if all else fails, the homeowners.
If there is desire to socialise these costs, then it should be socialised among existing homeowners (e.g. raising funds via some form of a one-off property tax), it's pretty unfair to ask renters and non-homeowners to fund home improvements for existing homeowners.
If there is desire to socialise these costs, then it should be socialised among existing homeowners (e.g. raising funds via some form of a one-off property tax), it's pretty unfair to ask renters and non-homeowners to fund home improvements for existing homeowners.
Last edited:
Presumably they liked having a fairly spacious two bedroom flat in one of these blocks instead of a studio flat or small one bed elsewhere. The affordability is the same, they chose a larger flat in a less desirable property/area. The sort of buying decision people make all the time.
Deleted User 298457
Deleted User 298457
Well durr. I mean seriously, what is your point?
They could have also bought a 4 bed in Glasgow...
Try keeping up. They didn't just buy these flats because they're all they could afford, they could have bought other property for the same money.
Deleted User 298457
Deleted User 298457
Irrelevant point is irrelevant. A lot of flats are in the category of "lower cost" housing which generally attracts people who are looking to buy "lower cost" housing. These generally came with help to buy schemes and other measures to get them on the ladder. This would be a good indicator that they didn't have £30k set aside to replace cladding on what should have been a leasehold, easy foot on the ladder.
The fact they didn't have to buy this specific flat is as dumb as saying how come they didn't hold a lighter to the cladding before moving in.
As a sidenote, look what else the government, councils and lovely developers have been doing in Battersea; https://www.theguardian.com/artandd...s-battersea-london-luxury-housing-development
Madness
Madness
If you go back to the start of this discussion the implication was that people had to buy these flats out of desperation because they couldn't afford to purchase anything else. That's not the case.
Multiple points of failure here, but it boils down to cutting corners to improve profit margins.
The whole housing market needs a serious shake up, not just prices but building regulations. You only have to look at the state of a Persimmon estate to see there's something seriously wrong with what is acceptable.
The government shouldn't pay, but they absolutely should step in and sort the mess out. If this was the banks they'd have already penned a bail out.
The whole housing market needs a serious shake up, not just prices but building regulations. You only have to look at the state of a Persimmon estate to see there's something seriously wrong with what is acceptable.
The government shouldn't pay, but they absolutely should step in and sort the mess out. If this was the banks they'd have already penned a bail out.
That’s an interesting take on what I said.
Yes, there are people who can afford a house who chose to live in flats for a variety of reasons.
It should be accountability across the manufacturers who lied about the safety and the developers/builders.
It should never fall to the tax payer or the owner to stump up these costs.
Jail time should also result for those involved who lied, regardless of “oh it happens across the industry” and those companies who built the homes should be done for and the directors of those companies barred from holding (or having any involvement) with property construction IMHO. It’s reprehensible.
It should never fall to the tax payer or the owner to stump up these costs.
Jail time should also result for those involved who lied, regardless of “oh it happens across the industry” and those companies who built the homes should be done for and the directors of those companies barred from holding (or having any involvement) with property construction IMHO. It’s reprehensible.
I'd agree. Allowing builders/insurers/regulators to get away with sticking flammable cladding onto houses sets the wrong precedent. I can't think of another instance where health and safety issues with a private sector product/good (automotive, domestic goods, etc) would be left to the government to pay for.
In no way should the taxpayer be footing the bill for this.
Last edited:
a lot of the flats were sold to first time buyers under leasehold shared ownership / help to buy prop up schemes from the government, mostly young people with student loans having to pay service charges for the block of flats, their own mortgage, part of the shared ownership mortgage and help to buy if they got that as well, I remember looking around 6 years ago when I was a first time buyer and researched those schemes and realised that they were just a massive con of inflating house prices and getting FTBs into as much debt as possible and so I avoided it like the plague, unfortunately those who were desperate to get onto the property ladder at whatever cost are now paying the price, as well as costs to replace cladding at £10ks they are having to fork out for waking watches at between £1-2k month.
I don't think the tax payer should be paying for this at all, those people who don't own homes have to pay to refurb someone else's home is not on, the builders and cladding manufacturers need to pay for the mess that they have created.
I don't think the tax payer should be paying for this at all, those people who don't own homes have to pay to refurb someone else's home is not on, the builders and cladding manufacturers need to pay for the mess that they have created.