To think there should be a fund to help those affected by fire hazard cladding

[LakieLady]

I've read a couple of articles lately about people who bought flats that have been clad in flammable cladding, like Grenfell, and there has just been an item on the news about it.

Many are facing financial ruin because the cost of fire insurance on the flats has skyrocketed now that the risks are known. Some are facing premiums of thousands a year. They can't sell, because no-one will buy them because of the insurance costs. They can't not pay the insurance because it's a condition of the lease and they will lose their flats if they don't pay.

Even if leaseholders are able to pay the premiums, they are likely to get massive bills when the cladding is eventually replaced, like tens of thousands.

None of this was their fault. The people who made the cladding issued misleading test data, and even when contractors raised concerns they were brushed aside. The developers who commissioned the buildings often specified the dangerous materials.

I'm sure this will eventually lead to legal action, and there may well be compensation, but this could take years. Those who bought these properties in good faith need financial help right now.

I think the insurers, government, developers, HAs, LAs and freeholders should set up a fund now to bear the added insurance costs and the cost of making these buildings safe. It's bad enough to know that your home is unsafe without having to pay through the nose for the errors and misreprepresentation of others.

No, all the costs for sub standard materials/workmanship should be met by both the suppliers and the builders, not the tax payer.

If the local authority pays into this “fund” of yours, it means that council tax payers are contributing - why should Council tax payers who might not be able to afford to buy their own homes have to pay towards someone else’s privately owned home?

The court case against the manufacturer should be pushed along and compensation paid . Alternatively the government should help then take the money back out of any compensation awarded.

It's an absolute scandal for the flat owners, I don't know what the solution is but I feel for them. I don't know if the UK has a version of the class action lawsuits that the US has, would the owners have more power if they joined forces to reject these costs? I don't know.

I don't think the government should be the ones to bear the brunt of the cost caused by private companies cutting corners and disregarding health and safety.

Well there is. The government set aside quire a few million, but from what I understand it's difficult to access and claim and has ridiculous qualification criteria.

I agree. Look at the Grenfell case, it's so long and complex, it's going to be almost impossible in a civil case for people to prove who was responsible for the cladding, in the web of subcontractors etc. Grenfell is a public enquiry. It's simply not going to be possible for private individuals to sue the contractors that designed / fitted / manufactured their panels and get any kind of compensation. It's a scandal.

There should be a joint fund between the insurers / building federation/

This should be released and done at cost.

Then when the legal cases find in whoevers favour, the responsible can pay this fee.

It is inhuman to leave people in dangerous flats with no easy hope of resolve.

They can’t sell not only because of the insurance costs but also because you now can’t get a mortgage on the flats (or in a slightly separate scandal any flat which isn’t cladded but needs an inspection and there’s a c5 year waiting list). It’s completely awful for them.

The disgusting developers- Hyde, Taylor wimpey etc etc who collect crazy amounts of service charges every month from their residents for apparently no reason, and while also built and approved the flats and their shitty workmanship, should be made to pay. *note, im an ex-Hyde flat resident who thankfully got out just before this hellish nightmare kicked off.

I would prioritise legal action against the manufacturer and installer, although I gather that its not clear cut and there's no guarantee the court would find in favour of tenants/owner occupiers.

@Iqqq, ultimately, I would hope that this is the case, but it could take many years. Even a simple bit of construction litigation that I was involved in had several parties enjoined, as they each tried to blame the other, and ran for 7 years before it settled.

These people need help now.

@ToniTheDonkey, LA's input should be limited to buildings where they are the freeholders. I don't expect councils that haven't built or refurbed properties to pick up the tab for those that did.

@ToniTheDonkey

If the local authority pays into this “fund” of yours, it means that council tax payers are contributing - why should Council tax payers who might not be able to afford to buy their own homes have to pay towards someone else’s privately owned home?

I put YANBU but actually I agree with this. I agree the people affected need help as this situation is unfair but don’t think it should be the taxpayers money. I would hope it would come from the developers who built the flats.

I also can’t believe there hasn’t been more press/outrage at this. It’s got hardly any coverage yet many people are losing their homes and money.

@BeakyWinder

It's an absolute scandal for the flat owners, I don't know what the solution is but I feel for them. I don't know if the UK has a version of the class action lawsuits that the US has, would the owners have more power if they joined forces to reject these costs? I don't know.

I don't think a class action would be possible, as different schemes have different contractors, commissioners, architects, freeholders etc.

My understanding is that class actions are only possible when you have several plaintiffs suing the same defendant(s).

@Mousehole10, in some cases, esepcially with refurbs, the developers were LAs and housing associations.

It is absolutely criminal. People handing keys back to the bank as they can’t sell them and are worthless

It’s complicated, if they met the standards at the time then they weren’t strict enough and it’s the government at fault.

Frankly I am fucked off with developers building homes that will last 10 years, on over developed plots that cause flooding and problems for years, decimating wildlife and selling them for a fortune. Making millions and moving on to the space to Ruin. But it’s all allowed as planning and building controls aren’t strict enough and big developers “pay off” councils by building the schools and roads that areas need.

Everytime any regulations for planning or building is tightened the government get accused of stopping building, so stopping homes being built and stopping construction workers having jobs.

The construction company holding onto leasehold homes is another scandal waiting in the wings.

I don't know what the solution is but it is an appalling situation for those owning flats in affected buildings who are now facing massive insurance premiums or building repair costs. Often the flats are either ex local authority or built as part of urban regenration/ affordable housing schemes - so owned by people on relatively low incomes who thought this was an opportunity to get onto the housing ladder. And now they're left with a property that many of them can't afford to live in. Presumably also no one is going to buy a flat where the buildings insurance is 2k plus a year either, so they're effectively worthless.

It's a terrible situation.

I think that whoever specified using the faulty cladding for a particular building should be responsible for paying to remove it from that building, unless the suppliers of the cladding misrepresented/mis-described it, in which case they should pay.

We have lived in our privately owned block for over 30 years. We don't have cladding but still face enormous bills for fire safety works as a result of Grenfell.

We live in a deprived area and a lot of the residents have no means of raising that money.

What adds to the misery is the fact that we have to pay 20% VAT on the works.

It seems unfair for the government to be profiting from this awful situation.

I have just found a petition on this. Please sign if you agree with me.

petition.parliament.uk/petitions/562118

If the local authority pays into this “fund” of yours, it means that council tax payers are contributing - why should Council tax payers who might not be able to afford to buy their own homes have to pay towards someone else’s privately owned home?

I agree. Tax payers should not be picking up costs associated with private ownership.

[quote LakieLady]@Mousehole10, in some cases, esepcially with refurbs, the developers were LAs and housing associations.[/quote]
In which case they should pay of course, but the government shouldn’t pay for any which aren’t.

Contact the NHBC or whomever was the building control. They are actually taking the burden on of many claims already.

They should definitely be the first port of call for people in this situation.

I'm unsure of exactly how long the dodgy cladding has been used, or even if they'd extend warranties in this situation, but they passed it as safe when it clearly wasn't.. usually I'm on the other end of the NHBC, but they're supposed to step in when there's a problem like this.

It's a shit situation to be in, but it should be borne by the people who made the cladding and built the buildings.

The taxpayer cant really afford to compensate for shitty business practises. Especially at the moment, we're skinter than we've ever been.

I'm not an expert but I believe a lot of this cladding is attached to refurbished buildings as a way of modernising their apperance. If that is the case then I feel the Goovernment should , through the local authority and after fully scrutinized competetive tenders by a third party , remove the cladding to render the building safe and secure it from water ingress ( weather wise ) . Replacing it or tidying up the appearance of the building is down to who ever owns it. Just a suggestion.