Is the government really going to leave people in these Grenfell-style blocks?

[Eastie77]

Very sad to see a block of flats close to me erupt in flames today. It took 125 firefighters to bring it under control. It is of course fitted with Grenfell style cladding and residents cannot afford the huge bill to remove it.

I don't understand how developers can be let of the hook like this or how any government can leave people in these death traps. Surely it's only a matter of time before there are casualties on the scale we saw at Grenfell?

@MrsTerryPratchett

So I have to train as a structural engineer to buy a flat while government and business just sit on their arses saying, "it's your fault if you don't know the cladding is shoddy"? Really.

You'd take us back to the Victorian era. Work in the unsafe mill or starve. Your choice. Lick the lead paint, you should have known. Should be able to assess risk yourself.

Nice Strawman there!

Seriously though, to use the example of the pp, if she is not a high earner, had no savings, and had to use the help to buy scheme in order to purchase, do you not think it reasonable to expect her to have a little think about whether that is a good idea?

Do you not think this avenue has been explored?

The system has been set up to allow owners to make millions while their companies dissolve and cannot pay their debts. By governments. So the people who made money from this keep it and the people in the flats pay for their own situation. They can't sell, they can't move, their asset is worthless, they are living in trauma every day. But protect the millionaire owners of the companies.

If governments needs laws like this to promote business, that's a reality. But they should also protect the collateral damage of these laws.

I’m not sure it’s that unaffordable? Someone said it’s around £3m to replace cladding on one tower block, which has to have at least a 1,000 flats in it. So that’s only £3k per flat. And these are flats worth £750k? Why can’t the resident/owners and landlord take out a second mortgage? Or a regular bank loan?

@Thereoncewasababy

There was a waking watch on the block of flats that was on fire yesterday and people were still hospitalised. I think you're justifying the unjustifiable. There's children living in these unsafe flats all over the country.

2 people were taken to hospital.

Nobody is suggesting that the cladding remains on the building. It absolutely need to be replaced, but in the absence of the developers, this should be funded by the owners, not the taxpayer.

If I buy a home and later find out I have abestos tiles in it, I still have to pay for abestos removal myself. So why should these home owners be treated differently just because it’s a tower block?

It is fucking criminal that people are left this way.
I did think this was a complicated issue, but now I don’t think it is.
The buildings were compliant with building regulations. The regulations were not strict enough. The government need to put their hands up and say we didn’t do a good enough job. We are sorry. There’s no way it should fall down to the home owners. The government made the regulations.

Our whole development strategy in this country is so corrupt.

It’s not an argument about planning or affordability though. It’s an argument about breaches of regulations. If all the rules had been followed none of that horrific list from a pp would have occurred. If I buy a tin of soup, eat it and am poisoned because of a failure of the factory to check they we’re putting in salt and not arsenic who has responsibility?

Incidentally how much does fighting these fires cost? And treated the injured? Why should that cost fall to the government? And tax payers?

I have no skin in this game by the way, it’s just a entirely solvable problem that isn’t being solved for political reasons.

@PlanDeRaccordement

If I buy a home and later find out I have abestos tiles in it, I still have to pay for abestos removal myself. So why should these home owners be treated differently just because it’s a tower block?

You wouldn’t find that in a new building. A new building is built to current safety regulations and you expect that to be safe.

@GreenWillow

Caveat emptor.

What happens in other countries is irrelevant.

Are you FUCKING kidding me?

@PlanDeRaccordement

If I buy a home and later find out I have abestos tiles in it, I still have to pay for abestos removal myself. So why should these home owners be treated differently just because it’s a tower block?

See also the collapse of providers of structural warranties for new builds (NHBC alternatives).

Owners of these properties have been unable to sell/remortgage unless they purchase a new ‘off the peg’ policy at a cost of up to £30k.

Nobody’s expecting the taxpayer to foot the bill for that, are they?

these are flats worth £750k

The 2 beds are £750k, studios are as little as £300k.

@EvilPea
The buildings were compliant with building regulations. The regulations were not strict enough. The government need to put their hands up and say we didn’t do a good enough job. We are sorry. There’s no way it should fall down to the home owners. The government made the regulations.

But every other thing found out to be unsafe in homes does fall to the home owner to fix. Absbestos, lead paint, old electrical wiring practices, lead water pipes, etc. In every case they met regulations at the time of construction and were later found to be harmful and in ever case the home owners pays to fix it. Why should the government cover the costs for these home owners?

have a little think?

It's not really that is it? It's understanding cladding safety when there hasn't been an example of it going wrong up to that point.

I owned a flat in London years ago and wouldn't have had the first idea of asking about cladding, never mind investigating cladding safety requirements. Who would have?

And the idea that people who own flats are loaded is laughable. They now have debt but the asset has disappeared. They have less than renters now.

@EvilPea
A new building is built to current safety regulations and you expect that to be safe.

Yes but my point is that when asbestos was used, it was considered safe. When the cladding was used, it was considered to be safe also. Just because a building is “new” doesn’t mean we won’t in ten years or more find out, oh dear this bit is no longer considered to be safe.

It's appalling that the people who designed/ built/ supplied dangerous cladding (which lets not forget the manufacturers knew was dangerous) etc are not being held to account and forced to cough up where it's shown they did not proceed according to regs/ lied etc.

The fact it's been left up to the owners is simply fucking appalling.

I genuinely can't get my head around it.

Big companies and various others build homes that are dangerous and result in a lot of deaths. They have no responsibility. The responsibility is on individual home owners.

Fucking revolting.

@MrsTerryPratchett

have a little think?

It's not really that is it? It's understanding cladding safety when there hasn't been an example of it going wrong up to that point.

I owned a flat in London years ago and wouldn't have had the first idea of asking about cladding, never mind investigating cladding safety requirements. Who would have?

And the idea that people who own flats are loaded is laughable. They now have debt but the asset has disappeared. They have less than renters now.

It’s a about not buying a property unless you have enough in reserve in case of something like this happening.

It’s an argument about breaches of regulations. If all the rules had been followed

Correct me if wrong, but I thought at the time of construction the cladding did meet the safety regulations current then?
If the cladding did not at time of construction, then I agree some liability to construction industry and all existing construction firms should pay into a super fund to be managed by government to replace the cladding.

But if it was built meeting all safety regulations and then later aged out of them. Then it is the owners job to keep their flat/home up to date with safety regulations as they are revised over time.

It’s a about not buying a property unless you have enough in reserve in case of something like this happening.

Sweet lord, to be that rich.

I suspect that your posts about poor renters being made to pay are a little disingenuous and you're actually the kind of person who thinks it's possible for anybody other than the rich to buy with reserves. It's high rate tax payers you're actually considering right? The poor renters are just a fig leaf for self interest.

@TheYearOfSmallThings

these are flats worth £750k

The 2 beds are £750k, studios are as little as £300k.

is this a posh expensive building?

I'm just asking because I thought Grenfell was quite old and from the little I can see in photos, the building that caught fire this time looks much newer, so I would have thought would have had to conform to newer standards.

but now people on this thread are saying the standards weren't high enough even in more modern times?

The cladding company lied about the safety testing. It's been shown in emails etc.

Still so what eh why not make individuals pay for illegal actions of big companies. And if they can't pay well then the risk of catastrophic conflagration is one they'll just have to live (or die) with.

Sounds totally reasonable to me.

but now people on this thread are saying the standards weren't high enough even in more modern times?

Countries like Canada had higher standards. The UK didn't. Which I can't see as being anything other than the government's fault. Whether that was laissez-faire bullshit or negligence, who knows. But if other countries knew it was dangerous and didn't allow it, and our government did, how isn't that a government issue to sort out.

@VeganVeal

Its not just the cladding, There should have been - but there wasn't - a 'wet riser' taking firefighting water to the top of the tower. The fireman's lift should have worked - but it didn't. The window glass should not have been set in plastic which melted at 50 degrees - much cooler than a cup of tea or coffee. 'Containment' failed - and so the fire authority's 'stay put' advice should have been abandoned - soon after the cladding caught fire. Apartment front doors should have closed automatically once residents fled - but they didn't.

This poster has a clear explanation of what should have been but was not. Not then not now.

The responsibility is on individual home owners. Fucking revolting.

In fairness that is a risk of home ownership. In my case my house was built on clay soil without any real foundations, because that's how they did it then. Now I have subsidence, which will cost tens of thousands of pounds to sort out. Nobody will be paying for that except me, because I own the asset, and nobody else is going to pay to maintain the value and safety of my asset.

[quote PlanDeRaccordement]@EvilPea
A new building is built to current safety regulations and you expect that to be safe.

Yes but my point is that when asbestos was used, it was considered safe. When the cladding was used, it was considered to be safe also. Just because a building is “new” doesn’t mean we won’t in ten years or more find out, oh dear this bit is no longer considered to be safe.[/quote]
It’s not the same on a new building though. You expect it to be fit for purpose, hence why you don’t get surveys done in the same way you would an older house. As it would bring up things like the lead pipes, asbestos etc. You expect a level of safety compliance for at least the ten years of your nhb.
You don’t expect the same level of safety in an older property.

@Unsuremover
Yes @VeganVeal has good list about Grenfell which was government owned social housing. And obviously, the government is therefore responsible in that case.

But that doesn’t mean the government is responsible for all privately owned tower blocks.