Reply to: Burn Baby Burn....

[SueEllen]

Don't "buy" leashold, as you are only a tenant with full repairing obligations.

Lots of landlords have leasehold flats and most flats, particularly in London but other English cities too, are leasehold. (Anyway you also haven't heard this - A summary of proposed leasehold reform in 2021 - Yopa Homeowners Hub )

Anyway the people who are really screwed are those who have shared ownership. They own something like 30% of their properties, so pay rent on the other 70% of it, but are liable for 100% of any service charges.

[SueEllen]

There may be different circumstances for different blocks but, yes, I agree the money needs to be recovered. Each block that requires remedial action needs to be investigated to confirm the trail of accountability. That will take time but the residents of these blocks should not have to wait for that outcome. They should be fixed now and the funds recovered - most likely it will end up being public liability / professional indemnity insurances paying out.

Like the way Hiscox et all willingly paid out pandemic cover even though it was clearly written in the policy? The PL/PI insurers will be able to argue that the building materials were legal at the time.

[AtW]

most likely it will end up being public liability / professional indemnity insurances paying out.

[ladymuck]

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.

There may be different circumstances for different blocks but, yes, I agree the money needs to be recovered. Each block that requires remedial action needs to be investigated to confirm the trail of accountability. That will take time but the residents of these blocks should not have to wait for that outcome. They should be fixed now and the funds recovered - most likely it will end up being public liability / professional indemnity insurances paying out.

[Pragmatist]

It depends on who funds the Tories.

There are a lot of questions about that:

New details of Russian donations to Boris Johnson'''s Conservative party

14 ministers in Boris Johnson's government received funding from donors linked to Russia

An array of new links between Boris Johnson's Conservative party and donors with ties to the Kremlin have emerged on the same week that a major report accused the UK government of failing to provide Britain sufficient protection from Russian influence.


The following is a long read - but very worth it
From Russia With Blood: 14 Suspected Hits On British Soil That The Government Ignored

Russian assassins have been able to kill in Britain with impunity over the past decade, 17 current and former British and American intelligence officials told BuzzFeed News.

[vetran]

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.

my understanding is that some used the old test pass to cover different insulation that would fail those companies are most likely to fold. The fitness for purpose law still remains, additional specifications may exist on top.

You could sell some paint based on petrol, if its not fit for purpose because it bursts into flames and it didn't say it on the instructions in use it would still be a fail. IANAL o course.

[AtW]

It depends on who funds the Tories.

Builders, Insurance companies...

[Paddy]

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.

[AtW]

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.

[ladymuck]

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.

[ladymuck]

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.

[Hobosapien]

Retrospective government rule changes causing severe financial difficulties. Very familiar story to some.

[vetran]

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

Expect the suppliers to be sued to bankruptcy.

[Paddy]

Don't "buy" leashold, as you are only a tenant with full repairing obligations.

[AtW]

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.”

...