The Cladding Scandal

[SummaLuvin]

I haven’t seen a thread about this on mumsnet so I thought I would start one. Sorry, it's a long one.

The UK cladding scandal has come about as a result of fire safety remediation on tower blocks following the Grenfell Tower tragedy 3 1/2 years ago. Action is certainly needed to ensure this never happens again, but the reality of new regulation is that leaseholders are being asked to pay unaffordable amounts to fix these historic issues.

The name ‘Cladding Scandal’ is misleading, it is more than just cladding: it’s missing fire breaks, flammable insulation, wooden balconies… Much of the time breaking building safety regulations even at the time of building.

Tower blocks now require a survey (EWS1) to determine whether or not it is safe, if it fails then it has to resolve the issues which led to its failure.
-A ‘Waking Watch’ is often required, a corridor patrol who are on the look out for fire, this is temporary until the issues are permanently fixed. The cost of this ‘Waking Watch’ is charged back to the leaseholder.
-The flats are unsellable, valued at £0 given they are declared unsafe and mortgage lenders will not lend on them. And who would buy a flat when they are potentially going to be landed with a bill in the tens of thousands of pounds even if they had the cash and a mortgage wasn’t required?
-Owners mortgage rates are going up. As above, mortgage lenders will not lend on these flats, meaning owners are stuck on the mortgage product they are on, if their fixed term runs out they are automatically switched onto a higher interest rate and can do nothing about it.
-Buildings insurance is sky rocketing e.g. one building went from £39,000 to £191,000. This cost is charged back to the leaseholder.
-The cost remediation such as replacing cladding is often in the region of £30,000 per flat, and has been a high as £150,000 per flat. This cost is charged back to the leaseholder.
-While this is all going on they leaseholder has the mental burden of impending financial problems, but also the fear of living in an unsafe property.
-It often takes a long time for the issues to be fixed due to limited numbers of experts available, until then you are stuck, and life on hold.

Why should the leaseholder pay when they are not the ones at fault. Leaseholders did not build the building, leaseholders did not select the materials used, and leaseholders did not certify the building as safe. We bought these homes in good faith.

Read Hayley’s story here - www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/jan/22/experience-my-dream-flat-became-a-nightmare?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR1henQwM0siOphZyX9fHN1SmxyraMCj06BCXjs3iLTtvJEF00sSn9wxRRA#Echobox=1611310575

Sympathy is no good to leaseholders like myself, we need people to be aware and act. Compel their MP to support us in actions and not just words.

I've had to get an EWS1 form done on my maisonette, no communal areas and only one flat above ours so well under the 18m requirements . Our buyer's surveyor (sent by the lender) insisted on it despite everything on the form being completely irrelevant. After a lot of perseverance and endless phone calls and money I finally got it filled in and was accepted this week by the surveyor.
There needs to be proper guidance on the type of properties the form is applicable to. One form does not fit all.

It's such a huge scandal and I really feel for everyone trapped in these flats, spending all their money on it and being unable to do anything else with their lives. Lots of these flats are shared ownership or help to buy too so it's not like everyone living in them is loaded.

On the bright side I can't see that it will stay this way for too long. The Times has taken it up as their in-house campaign and Labour are pushing hard for it too. It's one of those issues that will have genuine cross-party support and I really think eventually the government will compel the freeholders to fix the issue.

It’s an absolute scandal!!! I read that Australia 3 wks after Grenfell has set up a task force to deal with such issues in their country, they paid for it by adding a tax to future building projects-‘why can’t we do that here?!
I don’t own such a flat myself but due to some insurance work following a leak me and my family were housed in an apartment in a building with cladding. There was a guy patrolling the corridors and I asked him why he did that, he said he was self employed so to save the residents a few grand a wk in external patrols, he And some others did the patrol themselves. Felt incredibly sorry for them, fortunately when I drive past I can see the cladding has been removed.

I am currently living in one of these flats and it is a nightmare. I bought into Shared Ownership when I was single, 7 years ago. My fiance and I had plans to sell up this year but now can't as our flat is worth £0. The only option for selling is to find a cash buyer, but who wants to move in to a death trap?

I am holding out hope that the campaigns led have a real impact on what lies ahead. If not, all the money we have saved (and earmarked for fertility treatment and a house deposit) will be gone - a large part of that being an early inheritance from my parents.

Fingers firmly crossed.

What I dont get is why the leaseholders are being billed for it as it's the freeholders responsibility. It's like asking a tenant to replace the kitchen and bathroom of a rented house!
Lots of people should be in the firing line before the residents (council, builders, owners to name but a few)

@Loofah01 I completely agree, they are just going in circles playing the blame game, no-one actually blames leaseholders, but we are picking up the tab.

Legally they can charge us for the costs of 'running' the building, security, cleaning communal areas, lift maintenance, car parks, roof repairs... I take no issue with this, if I owned a standard home and the roof was damaged I would pay to fix it.

This is different, the building was built wrong in the first place, it was declared safe, NatWest surveyed it and gave it a valuation, it passed their survey, but I have to pay correct these defects? However, as they can legally charge us they will. Boris can go on about how he hopes they will do the right thing and not pass on costs but very very few will pay a penny when not legally obliged.

I don't think the government/taxpayer should pick up the financial tab in any way for this, but they should step up & maybe even introduce temporary legislation if need be which allows the leaseholders to more easily pursue costs/mandate remedial work by the freeholders.

@FurierTransform

I don't think the government/taxpayer should pick up the financial tab in any way for this, but they should step up & maybe even introduce temporary legislation if need be which allows the leaseholders to more easily pursue costs/mandate remedial work by the freeholders.

I get the perspective of people not wanting the tax payer to fund it, but the government don’t have clean hands in this mess. They are responsible for decades worth of safety standards not fit for purpose, unclear, and vague which have allowed some developers to do such a bad job. They de-privatised singing of buildings as safe, developers could do it themselves!

The right thing for them to do would be to fund the remedial works themselves. And chase back the money from developers, building safety officials, cladding producers....

But they are funding a significant proportion of the work? The building safety fund is available to all buildings with a B rating, they've extended the deadline for full applications by 6 months and they've put in place an additional fund where waking watches are required for safety so that leaseholders aren't paying for that either.

It's not perfect - in fact the whole thing is an absolute shit show - but there is some funding available.

@FurierTransform

I don't think the government/taxpayer should pick up the financial tab in any way for this, but they should step up & maybe even introduce temporary legislation if need be which allows the leaseholders to more easily pursue costs/mandate remedial work by the freeholders.

And if the freeholders close their business?

My best friend is having this issue. Trying to sell her flat. Its under 18m just mortgage companies insisting on ews anyway. And it came back with a middle rating. Can't sell it for love nor money anymore.

In addition cos its a mortgage requirement and not a law the managing agent said they can't force leaseholders to pay so the ones wanting to sell or remortgage are being held hostage by those with no mortgage who refuse to pay. The govt will only help if the building is over 18m so they're stuck

It’s a mess no doubt, but I don’t think it’s fair to say contractors or developers are to blame when for the majority they built to the building regulations that were in place at the time of construction. Of course if there are things like missing fire stopping etc then the developer ought to be liable, but if the cladding was deemed safe by the standards of the day (and were certified as such by the local authority’s building regulations department), then what are they meant to do? Leaseholders usually effectively buy a putative freehold in the sense that they have, say, a 999 year lease. Why should leaseholders not pick up the tab for maintaining or repairing their properties in the same way a freeholder of a house does? (Obviously that’s not relevant in the case of missing fire stopping or evidence of building regs not being met at the time of construction etc).

Can we please give these petitions a last burst of support! They are both due to end shortly - one will end tonight (only 6 months time allowed to collect signatures)
Don't just sign yourself - ask anyone in your household over 18 to sign and ask others in your block also to support (maybe via WhatsApp group etc)

petition.parliament.uk/petitions/332674

petition.parliament.uk/petitions/328201

@PseuDenim

It’s a mess no doubt, but I don’t think it’s fair to say contractors or developers are to blame when for the majority they built to the building regulations that were in place at the time of construction. Of course if there are things like missing fire stopping etc then the developer ought to be liable, but if the cladding was deemed safe by the standards of the day (and were certified as such by the local authority’s building regulations department), then what are they meant to do? Leaseholders usually effectively buy a putative freehold in the sense that they have, say, a 999 year lease. Why should leaseholders not pick up the tab for maintaining or repairing their properties in the same way a freeholder of a house does? (Obviously that’s not relevant in the case of missing fire stopping or evidence of building regs not being met at the time of construction etc).

They weren't compliant with building regulations though were they? That's become apparent for those like me who've been following the Grenfell enquiry. The problem is that a succession of architects, surveyors, building contractors, suppliers, etc., have misinterpreted the building regulations and because they've all misunderstood, then no particular person is responsible. It's a collective problem for lots of links in the chain of people - too many "professionals" were relying on eachother and not actually checking the regulations themselves.

But then that means even the local authority whose job it is to certify that a building meets the regulations has interpreted the regulations incorrectly historically surely? In which case shouldn’t the leaseholders be taking it up with them? If no one body can even agree what the regulations meant at any given point in time, how can anyone say with certainty that what was built WASN’T compliant at the time? Also, and I know this is massively simplifying a hugely convoluted problem, but again if I buy a freehold house, if it has structural issues etc it is on me to fix, nobody else. If you have a 999 year lease, you kind of are the freeholder for all intents and purposes.

That’s not to say it isn’t an utterly shitty situation and one which the government could have reasonably foreseen when putting together the legislation surrounding this post—Grenfell.

The thing with long leases, though, is that they usually require the leaseholder to pay towards repairs etc needed to the whole building. That's why they have annual charges which are usually for accumulating money over many years for the big works. Trouble with these modern blocks is that there's not been enough time for the building funds to accumulate as major expenses wouldn't usually be expected for a couple of decades or more, whereas because of the cladding, major works are needed within just a few years of occupancy.

That’s a really good point about not having had time to build up reserves. However I still maintain that if nobody can point to an actual breach (setting aside missing fire stopping and items like that where there is an obvious breach) and the developers can show they built to the regulations of the day, then the leaseholders must bear the responsibility of rectification. In the same way a house owner would have to even if the day after they complete a serious structural issue is discovered and they have no money in their pockets after the costs of moving etc. It’s shit and unfortunate but taxpayers shouldn’t pocket the whole burden and nor should developers. A hybrid solution would be best whereby all parties contribute. I used to live in a flat and had to cough up a shit ton to replace lifts throughout the block despite living on the ground floor. Horrible and scary and I have all sympathy, but to expect to have zero liability as a leaseholder is unrealistic (where actual foreseeable and deliberate breach is not proven).

@Kazzyhoward

The thing with long leases, though, is that they usually require the leaseholder to pay towards repairs etc needed to the whole building. That's why they have annual charges which are usually for accumulating money over many years for the big works. Trouble with these modern blocks is that there's not been enough time for the building funds to accumulate as major expenses wouldn't usually be expected for a couple of decades or more, whereas because of the cladding, major works are needed within just a few years of occupancy.

Charges such as ground rent are for general maintenance, not replacing structural defects! I'd love to head up the task force if they ever create one, I'd be able to vent my spleen on the incompetent bastards that idly sat by with substandard safety checks and testing

Yes see this on tv, surely it should fall to the builders etc , you buy a new place you expect it to be built to regulations.
Not seen any petitions around

If anyone is interested in supporting leaseholders, the best way to do so is ask you local MP to sign the The McPartland Smith Amendment to the Fire Safety Bill, this ensures funding works required to fix historic building and fire safety defects will not be from leaseholders.

There is a thread about this as I was on it recently as the limited cladding on a property nearly prevented us getting a mortgage

EWS1/cladding form stress www.mumsnet.com/Talk/property/4069214-EWS1-cladding-form-stress

Never realised what an issue this was until we were affected. It's a nightmare situation that needs sorting ASAP!

I've signed the petition linked to. I am directing my anger at developers - it is their job to build homes which are fit for purpose. And they haven't.

They got their money, and have all but disappeared from the efforts to sort out their shoddy fucking work.

But if it can be shown a developer built the building to the standards that were compliant with Building Regs at the time, and indeed for certified as such by the LA at the time, then it wasn’t “shoddy” then? In which case why should they pick up the entire bill when the residents likely live in flats with 999 year leases?

It is wrong what has happened, but not for the taxpayer to put right.

The builders must pay.

And advice for the future- never buy a flat, or leasehold. Better not to buy at all, as these people have found out.

@PseuDenim

But then that means even the local authority whose job it is to certify that a building meets the regulations has interpreted the regulations incorrectly historically surely? In which case shouldn’t the leaseholders be taking it up with them? If no one body can even agree what the regulations meant at any given point in time, how can anyone say with certainty that what was built WASN’T compliant at the time? Also, and I know this is massively simplifying a hugely convoluted problem, but again if I buy a freehold house, if it has structural issues etc it is on me to fix, nobody else. If you have a 999 year lease, you kind of are the freeholder for all intents and purposes.

That’s not to say it isn’t an utterly shitty situation and one which the government could have reasonably foreseen when putting together the legislation surrounding this post—Grenfell.

Because, to use this simplified analogy, this was not identified on a professional survey. Which for example subsidence would be.