Originally posted by SueEllen
View Post
- 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!
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
- You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
- You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
- If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
Logging in...
Previously on "Taxpayer may have to contribute more to fix building safety crisis, Gove tells MPs"
Collapse
-
-
Originally posted by cojak View Post
And let’s not forget Small Government deregulation, the Tories mantra.
I know B'Liar looked a lot like a Tory but he wore a red rosette in 2005.
That was the year they abolished fire safety certificates which meant the experts with skin in the game were removed.
https://www.redboxfire.co.uk/blogs/h...icate-you-cant
Under past legislation, the Fire Authority would issue a Fire Safety Certificate to demonstrate that the workplace met the required standards of fire safety.
However, the Fire Safety Certificate no longer exists, and since any Fire Safety Certificate issued under the Fire Precautions Act 1971 is no longer valid, how do you ensure compliance with the legislation set out in the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005?
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/.../contents/made
Yes the tories should have reversed it because it was a stupid law but of course that would be hard work there were cronies to bribe.
Leave a comment:
-
Hey! don't forget Prince Andrew's nonce's bill. Taxpayers have to pay for that too.
Know your place Serf!
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by SueEllen View PostWe don't tend to put politicians in jail in this country for bad policies that become law .....
The French are happy convict their Presidents of all sort of things, it's the right way - high power should come with high responsibility
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by AtW View Post
That always happened, happening right now and will happen in the future.
What's really missing is "3. Lack of responsiblity for the tulip job done" - this include money (that can be easily provided by insurance that must survive much longer than 10 years) and stiff jail for persons involved in this - including people who removed proper oversight over new buildings
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by WTFH View PostThere's two different things going on:
1. Firms who make the materials
2. Developers who specify or use those materials
What's really missing is "3. Lack of responsiblity for the tulip job done" - this include money (that can be easily provided by insurance that must survive much longer than 10 years) and stiff jail for persons involved in this - including people who removed proper oversight over new buildings
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Paddy View Post
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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by vetran View Post
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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Paralytic View PostMaybe 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?
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.
Leave a comment:
-
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?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by AtW View Post"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.
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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by SueEllen View PostFirms 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.
Leave a comment:
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Leave a comment: