Dangerous cladding freeholders arguments?Make Text Bigger
I am reading but still failing to understand the arguments presented by the private owners of approximately 170 dangerously clad buildings are that means others are responsible for fixing the problem.
This resulting in James Brokenshire announcing this morning that £200m of public money will be spent to prevent another tragedy.
With the personal back drop that flats near me have to have repairs to a roof carried out which has resulted in a hike of the management fees. These are flats that, as they are turned over, doubling clauses are introduced.
It seems unlikely that any potential leaseholder in one of these privately owned tower blocks would have taken on a property if, front and centre in the advice given on the road purchase, the words ‘ and by the way, you and your fellow lease holders are entirely responsible to pay for everything … and also pay the ground rent.’
What are the generic responsibilities of the owner of the freehold?
The only argument presented by a private owner that I can conceive of, reduced to it’s most basic, is … we had cladding put on in good faith to improve the quality of living for our tenants and it’s not our fault that the building industry and legislation failed us.
What are the arguments being presented by the owners of these 170 buildings that demonstrate they are absolved of any financial responsibility?
I’m just trying to understand.
Links to articles would be good.
Please Log-In OR Become a member to reply to comments or subscribe to new comment notifications.