Sir Peter Bottomley has repeated this afternoon his Queen’s Speech proposal that the prime minister order “a summit on fire safety with affected groups to find a workable solution to the building safety crisis”.
“Residential leaseholders are being asked to pay the extra £10 billion. Government has so far allocated a little over £5 billion as a contribution to fire safety remediation costs.
“Residential leaseholders were not those responsible for the building safety defects, nor do they own the buildings. It is unsatisfactory that innocent leaseholders must carry the multiple financial major costs for remediation and significant reduction in the value and saleability of their homes.
“Ministers sometimes talk the about the tax and levy proposals to bring money in, yet will not contribute extra help to the leaseholders’ dilemma.
“With no legal standing to sue those responsible for the safety defects, leaseholders are facing still more years of fear, uncertainty, unquantifiable costs, bankruptcy, homelessness, strained family relationships. You and your advisers can add to the list.
“We need to discuss how much money, source of the money needed to overcome the defects and the stagnating residential leasehold market.
“We must find a way to release leaseholders from the shackles of their unsafe, defective homes. I should be grateful for your endorsement of a summit to tackle this generational failure in fire safety and regulation.”
After I wrote to Sir Peter about my daughter’s plight as an affected leaseholder, his assistant kindly phoned me and sympathetically listened to my daughter’s concerns and the stress the financial burden and the uncertainty of this continuing nightmare is causing her. We are extremely grateful to Sir Peter and his staff for all they are doing to try to get the government to put in place measures to ensure innocent leaseholders, who bought in good faith, do not have to pay for the remediation work to make their homes safe to live in. This situation has gone on for far too long. Innocent leaseholders’ livelihoods and health are being ruined.
I can not understand why no one is comparing this safety issue with the motor car safety issue, where in order also to save life seat belts were made compulsory- – But Not retrospective- -Mot tests were also introduced TO SAVE LIFE – – BUT AGAIN NOT RETROSPECTIVE- – WHY OH WHY ISTHIS SAFETY ISSUE DIFFERENT??? More lives are probably lost in car safety issues. Perhaps more M Ps have classic cars?? IT MAKES NO SENSE.
Welcome to the unsavory world of leasehold where the politicians who voted against the McPartland amendment are true to the roots of the name of politics.
Poly > many … tics > bloodsucking parasites.