Taxpayer may have to contribute more to fix building safety crisis, Gove tells MPs

[AtW]

"Minister says it is proving hard to get firms who made combustible materials to pay

Michael Gove has told MPs the taxpayer may have to pay more to make thousands of buildings safe after saying it is proving hard to get companies who made combustible materials to pay to fix the building safety crisis.

In comments that struck a less bullish tone about his previously stated ambition to make the construction industry and developers pay, he conceded that the “government has to share some of that responsibility as well” and that the “taxpayer is the backstop”.

Gove had said he wanted freeholders, developers and product manufacturers to pay £4bn to help fix combustible cladding on all tower blocks above 11m, after the government already committed £5.1bn.

But the secretary of state for levelling up, housing and communities told a Commons select committee: “The chancellor will probably shiver to hear me say it, but we have a responsibility here. But what we want to do is to make sure that with the taxpayer having already committed a significant amount, those who do have a direct stake in ownership do so.”"

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...gove-tells-mps

This is really amazing - residential propery is so valueable, yet firms can build deadly tulipe and get away with it, how the feck is it legal to build stuff and not have Lloyds of London level insurance to cover any such claims for period of 30-50 years? Say place that I bought (a luxury betsit over a kebab shop) was built by an offshore company that is long gone.

[SueEllen]

Firms will just dissolve.

It was a failure of government regulation and enforcement of those regulations.

If you go around cutting costs first because you can and then under the banner of austerity, then don't be surprised decades down the line problems surface.

[cojak]

Firms will just dissolve.

It was a failure of government regulation and enforcement of those regulations.

If you go around cutting costs first because you can and then under the banner of austerity, then don't be surprised decades down the line problems surface.

And let’s not forget Small Government deregulation, the Tories mantra.

[SueEllen]

And let’s not forget Small Government deregulation, the Tories mantra.

Thing is Labour under Blair and Brown had a chance to rectify the issues introduced by the previous Tory governments. They just tinkered at the edges.

[WTFH]

"Minister says it is proving hard to get firms who made combustible materials to pay

Michael Gove has told MPs the taxpayer may have to pay more to make thousands of buildings safe after saying it is proving hard to get companies who made combustible materials to pay to fix the building safety crisis.
...

Gove had said he wanted freeholders, developers and product manufacturers to pay £4bn to help fix combustible cladding on all tower blocks above 11m, after the government already committed £5.1bn.
...

This is really amazing - residential propery is so valueable, yet firms can build deadly tulipe and get away with it, how the feck is it legal to build stuff and not have Lloyds of London level insurance to cover any such claims for period of 30-50 years? Say place that I bought (a luxury betsit over a kebab shop) was built by an offshore company that is long gone.

There's two different things going on:
1. Firms who make the materials
2. Developers who specify or use those materials

A company can make material that has certain fire standards when used in the way it is designed. If the same material is then used in a solution for which it was not designed, it it not the responsibility of the firm who made it.
e.g. "This cladding is safe if used on blocks less than 10 stories high which has fire doors and emergency stairs, where all residents have the ability to evacuate after 15 minutes via the stairs" - if that is then used in a 15 storey building with no emergency stairs, then the cladding is not appropriate.

[AtW]

Firms will just dissolve.

3rd party insurance from the likes of Lloyds of London (who ain't going to dissolve just like this) should be required as a condition of approving any building for sale.

[Paralytic]

Maybe I'm looking at this too simply. But, someone owns those buildings, and they are (in most cases) worth a lot of money. Surely the onus is on the building owners to ensure they comply with safety regulations for residential (or other) occupation. Or is the issue to do with freehold v leasehold?

[vetran]

Maybe I'm looking at this too simply. But, someone owns those buildings, and they are (in most cases) worth a lot of money. Surely the onus is on the building owners to ensure they comply with safety regulations for residential (or other) occupation. Or is the issue to do with freehold v leasehold?

Frequently the ownership of the Block is transferred to a management company once built, they normally have few assets and are part / wholly owned by leaseholders, if not they decide on behalf of leaseholders who pay.

WTFH has it right. Stuff was mis used and the developers & surveyors need to pay for that, expect them to pheonix soon.

Some of the stuff though legal was obviously inappropriate and should have been banned like in Germany.

Most of this should have been prevented by decent fire officers and building codes. The thing about a profit driven motive, morals tend to disappear when the pay day is big enough which is why you regulate.

[Paddy]

Frequently the ownership of the Block is transferred to a management company once built, they normally have few assets and are part / wholly owned by leaseholders, if not they decide on behalf of leaseholders who pay.

WTFH has it right. Stuff was mis used and the developers & surveyors need to pay for that, expect them to pheonix soon.

Some of the stuff though legal was obviously inappropriate and should have been banned like in Germany.

Most of this should have been prevented by decent fire officers and building codes. The thing about a profit driven motive, morals tend to disappear when the pay day is big enough which is why you regulate.

Often the Freehold is owned by an offshore shell company owned by anonymous Brits. The Freehold is then leased to a Head-lessee for 99 years. The Head-lessee is normally a limited company and it is responsible for all repairs and maintenance. The Head-lessee sublets via leases to the flat owner for 99 years less one day. A condition of the lease is that the flat owner is issued with a share for the Head-lessee company. Therefore, the responsibly for building repairs will always fall upon the the flat owner not the actual Freeholder.

[vetran]

Often the Freehold is owned by an offshore shell company owned by anonymous Brits. The Freehold is then leased to a Head-lessee for 99 years. The Head-lessee is normally a limited company and it is responsible for all repairs and maintenance. The Head-lessee sublets via leases to the flat owner for 99 years less one day. A condition of the lease is that the flat owner is issued with a share for the Head-lessee company. Therefore, the responsibly for building repairs will always fall upon the the flat owner not the actual Freeholder.

Yes sadly the actual residents are normally done up like kippers by clever lawyers.