Bellway “as a responsible developer” is meeting the bill
… So what about the not-so-responsible Lendlease and Ballymore?
In yet another triumph of leaseholder activism, Bellway and the Peabody Trust have caved in over the Grenfell cladding costs at New Festival Quarter.
The east London site in the constituency of Jim Fitzpatrick, Labour MP for Poplar and Limehouse and patron of LKP.
Martin Boyd, LKP chair, has liaised with the leaseholders working through the options when confronted with a Grenfell cladding bill.
LKP is also the only organisation that has attempted to get together all the leaseholders caught up in the Grenfell cladding issue, holding an APPG with housing minister Kit Malthouse in July.
Bellway says in a statement today:
“Although the buildings were signed off as having met building regulations at the time of construction, we recognise there are concerns surrounding cladding following the Grenfell fire and, as a responsible developer, we want our customers to have peace of mind that the cladding will be replaced.”
Although Bellway says it will be working with freehold owner Adriatic Land 6 (GR1) Limited, part of the Long Harbour fund, there is no suggestion that anonymous and hidden beneficial owners of this entity – almost certainly private equity individuals – will pay any part of the cladding bill.
Nor is it clear whether the warranty provider NHBC will pay anything, either, although it is mentioned in the statement (in full, below).
Bellway says in its statement that work will start in the summer of next year.
Bellway Communication 12.10.18
But here are two developers who say they won’t be paying:
£3m Grenfell cladding bills fall on residents at Lendlease’s Cypress Place and Vallea Court
Related posts:
‘Gargantuan’ Grenfell cladding bills from Astor and Tchenguiz on sites such as New Festival Quarter, The Times reveals today
Grenfell cladding leaseholders form campaign group
Welsh Assembly evidence over Grenfell cladding costs by FPRA ‘consultant’ Cassandra Zanelli is called into question
Sean Mulryan’s Ballymore won’t be doing the ‘decent thing’ over Grenfell cladding costs at New Providence Wharf
Slough Council v Benji the Binman over Grenfell cladding costs at Nova House
Notting Hill Genesis housing association pulls shared ownership leasehold advert after complaints
Whilst it is true that leaseholders have lost cases in the tribunal appertaining to who bears liability for cladding replacement, these losses are based purely on the strict interpretation of the lease.
As yet no developer/freeholder has faced court action?
Indeed it may well be that developer/freeholders are most anxious to avoid a legal ruling and it may be cheaper for them to act “honourably”and pay for replacement cladding..
Any case may well turn on “were their any indications that the cladding was unsafe when the development was built?”
If it can be shown that there were(such as previous fires involving the cladding) or that the approved cladding was substituted for a cheaper less specified cladding, those developers could find themselves in a whole heap of trouble?.
You can make a written complaint to Companies House against any director for not accepting responsibility for their company’s mistakes in using wrong materials in cladding of tower blocks.
I am surprised that Michael Epstein who is usually so accurate about these matters seems unaware of the many cases that have been heard in the FTT which sits in Cambridge County Court. Regional Judge Edginton has heard several cases on this very issue
Chloe,
You may have misunderstood the point I was trying to make? It may have been the way I wrote the post, if so please forgive me?
I refer specifically to the Courts not the tribunal.
Basically the tribunal will look at the terms of the lease and make a judgement accordingly. whereas a court could decide if the fitting of the cladding was lawful?
Your point is still completely wrong-Who is going to contest these cases? Have you not heard about the expense involved? Just look at the New Lawrence House litigation where leading counsel had to withdraw shortly before this week’s trial. That’s the same team which fought Rendlesham
In the real world of the FTT there are certain judges who rule the roost and close the doors of the court even in the most extreme examples. The situation is akin to seeking justice in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union.
You need to spend more time talking to real people like I do.
This country has never been in such a perilous state., The press is silent. The lawyers are timorous. Many of the judges are bonkers and deceitful.
Meanwhile hundreds of thousands of people occupy buildings where they could die at any moment and where the defects are so numerous,buildings insurance can no longer be obtained
Another issue that is constantly being missed by our terrible press (Lazy rather than stupid though one suspects they are being nobbled as well) is that of the new home warranty.
In what universe can a building with dangerous cladding and also with many other faults not be protected by such a policy? Yet here we are 16 months after Grenfell and one can count on the fingers of one mitten the number of successful claims that there have been. Indeed the best advice seems to be -Don’t instruct solicitors.One has a much better chance dealing directly with the stubborn insurers.
As for UK Finance, many of their members face financial ruin but we have absolutely no sympathy for them-They were warned about all this shortly after Grenfell
Read the following and weep. Meanwhile residents can’t sleep at night and no one does anything about it
”From architects and developers through to builders and housing associations, with so many professionals involved in the construction of new build properties and conversions, resolving any mishaps that may occur later down the line can be a laborious process. ”
”A builder’s or developer’s reputation is clearly important when considering the quality of a property. Beyond that a buyer will want a reliable safety net.
We provide peace of mind and protect your investment from the risk of such undiscovered defects, because:
We will have properly assessed the build project from design through to workmanship on site, to help minimise the chance of future defects.
If a structural or other insured defect does arise you won’t have to prove who is to blame, just that there is such a defect – and then contact us with the details. ”