• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Burn Baby Burn....

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Burn Baby Burn....

    ..ok it is a tasteless title.

    Lots of leaseholders have gone bankrupt over this already.

    Plus if you are a leaseholder in a building under 18 ft you get the privilege of being able to get a loan.

    Extra GBP3.5bn promised to tackle unsafe cladding - BBC News

    An extra £3.5bn has been promised by ministers to remove unsafe cladding from high-rise buildings over 18m high in England "at no cost to residents".

    Many thousands of flat-owners face huge bills for fire-safety improvements, brought in after 2017's Grenfell Tower fire when flames spread via combustible cladding, killing 72 people.

    Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick said it was the "largest ever government investment" in building safety.

    Labour said it was "too late for many".

    The £3.5bn comes on top of funding of £1.6bn that was announced for the removal of unsafe cladding last year.

    Ministers have come under growing to increase the pot as leaseholders have been hit by building improvement costs and soaring insurance costs.

    Some say they have effectively become trapped in their own homes - unable to sell until the work is carried out yet in danger of bankrupting themselves to meet the costs.

    Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick told the Commons leaseholders in high-rise buildings above 18m, or with six storeys or more, would face no costs for cladding works.

    He said the risk was "significantly lower" for lower-rise blocks of flats.

    However, where cladding needed to be removed, Mr Jenrick announced a long-term scheme to protect leaseholders which would mean no leaseholder would pay more than £50 a month for the removal of unsafe cladding.

    He also said a new levy would be placed on future developments.

    It "cannot be right the costs fall solely on tax payers", he said, adding that the government would develop a levy targeted at developers seeking to build certain high-rise buildings in England.

    He also said a new tax for the UK residential property sector would be introduced from 2022, raising money to help pay for the removal of cladding.

    Mr Jenrick described the action as an "unprecedented intervention" without which building owners would simply pass on the costs of remediation work to leaseholders.

    "That would risk punishing those who have worked hard, who have bought their own home, but through no fault of their own have found themselves caught in an absolutely invidious situation," he said.

    'Financial ruin'

    Conservative MP Stephen McPartland said Mr Jenrick's announcement did not go far enough and the issue was much bigger than the matter of cladding.

    "The support he has offered does not help most people because people who've got excessive insurance premiums, fire safety defects - that's where the real costs are," he told BBC Radio 4's World at One.

    "Leaseholders are the innocent parties in this. Many people were in primary school when these buildings were constructed and they're now being hit with bills that will be bankrupting them."

    Labour's shadow housing secretary, Thangam Debbonaire, called the proposals "an injustice" that would "pile financial misery" on homeowners.

    She said there were many questions left unanswered, including on "skyrocketing" insurance costs, homes potentially remaining "unsellable", and the amount leaseholders would be expected to pay.

    The "arbitrary 18m height limit" could "mean the difference between a safe home and financial ruin", she said.

    Labour wants an independent taskforce to be established to take the matter out of politicians' hands and ensure funds are distributed fairly.
    "You’re just a bad memory who doesn’t know when to go away" JR

    #2
    Insurance company bailout ...

    “ He also said a new tax for the UK residential property sector would be introduced from 2022, raising money to help pay for the removal of cladding.”

    ...

    Comment


      #3
      Don't "buy" leashold, as you are only a tenant with full repairing obligations.
      "A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices," George Orwell

      Comment


        #4
        well the government is going to have to pay, the insulation passed building inspections.

        Expect the suppliers to be sued to bankruptcy.
        Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much.

        Comment


          #5
          Retrospective government rule changes causing severe financial difficulties. Very familiar story to some.
          Maybe tomorrow, I'll want to settle down. Until tomorrow, I'll just keep moving on.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by vetran View Post
            well the government is going to have to pay, the insulation passed building inspections.

            Expect the suppliers to be sued to bankruptcy.
            Yes in part. I believe that part of the Grenfel inquiry revealed that cladding manufacturers fudged (some of) the fire tests too. IIRC they tested each component part in isolation but not as a whole.

            Comment


              #7
              The right thing would be for HMG to replace all non-compliant cladding. As a large scale public project that would keep a lot of people in work for a good few years.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by ladymuck View Post
                The right thing would be for HMG to replace all non-compliant cladding. As a large scale public project that would keep a lot of people in work for a good few years.
                And who will pay for it?

                If HMG doing it then taxpayers are picking up the bill.

                What HMG should have done is force claims to get insurance idemnity payouts from builders who ultimately responsible for this tulip, and said builders will pay increased premiums in the future to make up for it - maybe it will make horrible multi-storey buildings less attractive due to higher cost.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by AtW View Post
                  And who will pay for it?

                  If HMG doing it then taxpayers are picking up the bill.

                  What HMG should have done is force claims to get insurance idemnity payouts from builders who ultimately responsible for this tulip, and said builders will pay increased premiums in the future to make up for it - maybe it will make horrible multi-storey buildings less attractive due to higher cost.
                  It depends on who funds the Tories.
                  "A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices," George Orwell

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by Paddy View Post
                    It depends on who funds the Tories.
                    Builders, Insurance companies...

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X