Leaseholders could end up bearing extra costs

The government has launched the biggest cladding removal scheme to fix dangerous cladding for the first time.

The cladding safety scheme has opened for all buildings in England over 11 meters and 11-18m in the Greater London authority area.

The scheme aims to remove unsafe cladding in mid-rise buildings which will be covered by government funding, protecting leaseholders from costs where the responsible developer cannot be made to pay.

However, one industry body remains concerned there are still too many ways leaseholders can end up bearing the cost of work they should not be responsible for.

Ensuring the safety of tenants

Propertymark says despite progress being made there continue to be shortfalls in the current protection for leaseholders.

Henry Griffith, policy and campaigns officer at Propertymark says: “We have long stated that remediation costs should be covered by those who are responsible for historic defects.

“It makes little sense that leaseholders who had little or no control over the rest of the building should be made to cover the costs of ensuring the safety of themselves or their tenants.”

Allows developers to continue to pass on remediation costs

Propertymark is strongly supporting Lord John Lytton’s proposal for an independent Building Safety Remediation scheme in the Levelling up and Regeneration Bill.

In a House of Lords debate last week on the bill, Lytton emphasised many instances where the current system allows developers to continue to pass on remediation costs. This includes extending leases after 14 February 2022, which causes leaseholders to lose their protections.

An independent body with the authority to issue liability without, what Lord Lytton called the “hideous level of complexity” of the current proposals, would go much further towards guaranteeing protections for leaseholders.

Mr Griffith added: “We believe that the amendments proposed by the Earl of Lytton provide greater protections for leaseholders, removing loopholes and establishing an independent body that would enforce liability, while also expanding the types of buildings where leaseholders would qualify for protections.”