My questions is why do leaseholders have to pay at all?

My questions is why do leaseholders have to pay at all?

11:38 AM, 9th November 2021, About 3 weeks ago 12

Text Size

Michael Gove, Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, has questioned why leaseholders have to pay anything towards replacing unsafe cladding on their buildings.

Gove said that despite the £5bn government scheme he was: “still unhappy with the principle of leaseholders having to pay at all, no matter how effective a scheme might be in capping their costs or not hitting them too hard at anyone time.”

At the House of Commons housing committee meeting he indicated he would consider pausing plans for the cladding repair loans where leaseholders would repay a maximum of £50 a month.

Gove is critical of developers who he perceives as putting cost before safety and doesn’t believe that leaseholders who are the innocent party should be asked to cover the costs or pay extortionate service charges and the government should step in to assist.

Watch this space as the Secretary of State has a reputation for being more maverick in his previous ministerial roles.



Comments

by Rob Crawford

16:34 PM, 9th November 2021, About 3 weeks ago

In situations where cladding and fire breaks have been installed that are not compliant with the law at the time - I agree. The installer should pay the bill. However, in many cases the installer will no longer be trading. In that case it's more difficult but maybe (because the issue appears to be widespread) a tax should be applied to the building industry to source Government funding of corrective actions.

by Rob Crawford

16:50 PM, 9th November 2021, About 3 weeks ago

Reply to the comment left by Rob Crawford at 09/11/2021 - 16:34
When I say law, I mean building standards/regulations for the time.

by Chris @ Possession Friend

8:32 AM, 10th November 2021, About 3 weeks ago

The manufacturers and installers ( Company Directors
etc ) should be held personally liable for selling and installing lethal products. end of.

by Vistaro

8:54 AM, 10th November 2021, About 3 weeks ago

Surely, this is not a leaseholder OR developer problem, firstly the leaseholder doesn't even own the building so why should they pay anything? secondly the developer / builder / owner who originally built the property and has a completion certificate confirming it was built to the regs in place at the time so how can they be to blame? that (to me) leaves whoever put the regs in place being at fault and hence they should pay perhaps as part of a PI claim against whoever advised the govt to put the regs in place. Just my thoughts.

by Rob Crawford

9:00 AM, 10th November 2021, About 3 weeks ago

Reply to the comment left by Vistaro at 10/11/2021 - 08:54
Assuming compliance with the regs! This is the issue, the regs have not been complied with!!

by Old Mrs Landlord

9:35 AM, 10th November 2021, About 3 weeks ago

While I welcome Gove's questioning as evidence of at least one member of government showing some sense of fairness in the matter, I must admit one of my first thoughts was "I wonder how many leasehold properties he owns which are affected?". Sadly, Government actions over recent years have led me to a cynical search for politicians' hidden motives behind every new announcement.

by Chris @ Possession Friend

9:38 AM, 10th November 2021, About 3 weeks ago

Reply to the comment left by Old Mrs Landlord at 10/11/2021 - 09:35
They're all ' bent ' as is coming out in the news at the moment.

by Karen

10:40 AM, 10th November 2021, About 3 weeks ago

Reply to the comment left by Vistaro at 10/11/2021 - 08:54
Where was building control in all of this? The EWS1 reports being done are looking into all sorts of issues, most nothing to do with ACM cladding, and are finding missing firebreaks etc. So how could building control ever sign this off? Do they not have any liability? Stupid question I know.

by Chris @ Possession Friend

10:51 AM, 10th November 2021, About 3 weeks ago

Exactly, Councils need to be held to account, - they're quick enough to do it with House holders - owners who don't comply with every letter of Regs.

by moneymanager

11:35 AM, 10th November 2021, About 3 weeks ago

"Compliance with the regulations", not all, but a large proportion of such developments will have had their Building Regulatoins Completion Certificate issued by the Council who's planning department will have passed the plans in the first place.

The development will have been permitted on the basis of the materials etc stated but in many, as in our case, materials have been substiuted with inferior product such as thinner insulation, and processes such as fire breaks and stopping have been inadequately carried, a prima facie case of incompetence but also, where material shave been substituted, fraud and thus a developer responsibility.

However, this raises the question of what purpose does certification serve if it can't even deliver on what was one of the largest residential buildings outside of London at the time? it should be noted that the certification isn't issued in respect of the building as a whole but in respect of each unit and without which that unit cannot legally be occupied. In turn, a unit without a certificate has no liability to Council Tax, does it then follow that Councils have been illegally making Council TAx demands? A while ago the Treasury Committee asked the VOA if they had received enquiries as to a reduction in banding as a result of this and received an opaque response following which the TC head left and the matter has never been followed up on, i think it's time it was.

1 2

Leave Comments

Please Log-In OR Become a member to reply to comments or subscribe to new comment notifications.

Forgotten your password?

BECOME A MEMBER