Leaseholders fight for compensation amid cladding crisis failures

Leaseholders fight for compensation amid cladding crisis failures

Tower block with a fire alarm on top and text failed with a X
12:01 AM, 2nd June 2025, 11 months ago 4

Eight years after the Grenfell Tower fire, the impact is still being felt by thousands of innocent leaseholders who continue to struggle with the financial and emotional consequences of ongoing changes and delays.

Many leaseholders are still living with the repercussions of the cladding crisis and the subsequent building safety regulations, facing delays in remedial work and a lack of support from the government.

Shockingly, some developments built by major housebuilders such as Barratt and Redrow still do not have remedial works completed eight years on from the Grenfell Tower fire.

A report published by the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) in Parliament warns that the appalling impact of the cladding crisis persists, as the government’s remediation plans continue to fall short.

Evidence presented to the PAC reveals far too many people still feel trapped in unsafe homes, facing financial uncertainty and unable to sell their properties or move on with their lives.

Disputes over building safety continue to delay the start of vital remedial work, and the government’s promised formal dispute resolution process has yet to materialise.

There is also a risk that residents in affected buildings face exorbitant insurance premiums long-term.

Repossessions are now taking place because many affected properties cannot be accurately valued, leaving owners unable to sell or remortgage. The entire market for these homes has virtually collapsed, eroded slowly and painfully by years of “buck passing”.

The diminution in property value, caused by years of inaction, has wiped tens of thousands of pounds off homes, sometimes even more. In some instances, reckless decisions by lenders have led to shortfalls of hundreds of thousands of pounds, leaving leaseholders financially ruined.

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) appear to be turning a blind eye to these cases and asserting this is not their problem.

The prescriptive and inadequate statements issued by various regulatory bodies require urgent scrutiny. Is this the reality we are expected to accept?

We believe there are many problems that are being covered up. Why should innocent leaseholders be forced to put their lives on hold? Why should we tolerate what amounts to a serious human rights infringement?

This is simply not good enough.

However, we at Cladding Scandal UK are fighting back and launching a campaign for financial compensation and you could be entitled to claim.

We agree with Sir Alan Bates that an independent body should be created to deliver compensation schemes for other scandals.

The cladding crisis is another scandal that is being suppressed, and we need recognition that people are still suffering. A mass legal action may be required to resolve these issues.

Please contact us in confidence with your details or forward to someone you know who has been affected by this crisis.

The evidence-based data we collect will help to support our group legal challenge for financial compensation.

You can contact us by emailing [email protected] and you can find more about us by clicking on our website here.

Article published by www.claddingscandal.co.uk


Share This Article

Comments

  • Member Since October 2022 - Comments: 410

    3:27 PM, 2nd June 2025, About 11 months ago

    This involves government money and the risk of misrepresentation endemic in leasehold as demonstrated from the posts on this site one example:

    Tripartite leases section 123 BSA 2022 refers to “relevant Landlord” and this may not be the RMC embedded in leaseholders leases unless the RMC is owned by leaseholders in equal shares who have the role of enforcing specific maintenance costs written in their leases governed by a Deed of Trust and Form A restriction.

    Depending on wording in tripartite leases may mean the leaseholders in separate role as the RMC shareholders , under section 124(2) the remediation contribution order against the LL in a tripartite lease, requires a corporate body (the RMC limited liability registered Companies House) to make the payments to a contractor remediating the defects, meaning liability falls on the leaseholders as shareholders /trustees under RMC Articles . The RMC in separate covenant acts on behalf of the landlord and another separate covenant acts on behalf of each Lessee (leaseholder).

    In Europe leases are standardised, in the UK all leases legally binding contracts are individual and different.

  • Member Since May 2015 - Comments: 2204 - Articles: 2

    5:57 PM, 2nd June 2025, About 11 months ago

    Reply to the comment left by Kizzie at 02/06/2025 – 15:27
    Thank goodness w are out of the EU. How dreadful it would be to have standard leases thrust upon us.

  • Member Since July 2024 - Comments: 112

    9:28 PM, 4th June 2025, About 11 months ago

    Support this action.. my Fiance has several with cladding issue or so called cladding as the Developer cant seem to recall what material was used. So 10 years on after the scandal yet how many live in “unsafe homes” unable to sell..Yet another colossal Politician diven failure. just as Awaab’s will be. Big noise about doing nothing that really helps people.

  • Member Since October 2022 - Comments: 410

    7:47 AM, 5th June 2025, About 11 months ago

    So what action is your fiancé taking with regard to getting information relating to the material used in construction? Were there no building surveys at purchase?

    Isn’t at least one of the issues that leaseholders not taking an interest- not attending meetings, not reading their leases, not examining service charge demands etc

Have Your Say

Every day, landlords who want to influence policy and share real-world experience add their voice here. Your perspective helps keep the debate balanced.

Not a member yet? Join In Seconds


Login with

or

Related Articles