• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Before Header

  • Home
  • What is LKP
  • Find everything …
  • Contact
Donate

Leasehold Knowledge Management Logo

Secretariat of the All Party Parliamentary Group on leasehold reform

Mobile Menu

  • Home
  • What is LKP
  • Find everything …
  • Contact
  • Advice
  • News
    • Find everything …
    • About Peverel group
    • APPG
    • ARMA
    • Bellway
    • Benjamin Mire
    • Brixton Hill Court
    • Canary Riverside
    • Charter Quay
    • Chelsea Bridge Wharf
    • Cladding scandal
    • Competition and Markets Authority / OFT
    • Commonhold
    • Communities Select Committee
    • Conveyancing Association
    • Countrywide
    • MHCLG
    • E&J Capital Partners
    • Exit fees
    • FirstPort
    • Fleecehold
    • Forfeiture
    • FPRA
    • Gleeson Homes
    • Ground rent scandal
    • Hanover
    • House managers flat
    • House of Lords
    • Housing associations
    • Informal lease extension
    • Insurance
    • IRPM
    • JB Leitch
    • Jim Fitzpatrick MP
    • John Christodoulou
    • Justin Bates
    • Justin Madders MP
    • Law Commission
    • LEASE
    • Liam Spender
    • Local authority leasehold
    • London Assembly
    • Louie Burns
    • Martin Paine
    • McCarthy and Stone
    • Moskovitz / Gurvits
    • Mulberry Mews
    • National Leasehold Campaign
    • Oakland Court
    • Park Homes
    • Parliament
    • Persimmon
    • Peverel
    • Philip Rainey QC
    • Plantation Wharf
    • Press
    • Property tribunal
    • Prostitutes
    • Quadrangle House
    • Redrow
    • Retirement
    • Richard Davidoff
    • RICS
    • Right To Manage Federation
    • Roger Southam
    • Rooftop development
    • RTM
    • Sean Powell
    • SFO
    • Shared ownership
    • Sinclair Gardens Investments
    • Sir Ed Davey
    • Sir Peter Bottomley
    • St George’s Wharf
    • Subletting
    • Taylor Wimpey
    • Tchenguiz
    • Warwick Estates
    • West India Quay
    • William Waldorf Astor
    • Windrush Court
  • Parliament
  • Accreditation
  • [Custom]
Menu
  • Advice
  • News
      • Find everything …
      • About Peverel group
      • APPG
      • ARMA
      • Bellway
      • Benjamin Mire
      • Brixton Hill Court
      • Canary Riverside
      • Charter Quay
      • Chelsea Bridge Wharf
      • Cladding scandal
      • Competition and Markets Authority / OFT
      • Commonhold
      • Communities Select Committee
      • Conveyancing Association
      • Countrywide
      • MHCLG
      • E&J Capital Partners
      • Exit fees
      • FirstPort
      • Fleecehold
      • Forfeiture
      • FPRA
      • Gleeson Homes
      • Ground rent scandal
      • Hanover
      • House managers flat
      • House of Lords
      • Housing associations
      • Informal lease extension
      • Insurance
      • IRPM
      • JB Leitch
      • Jim Fitzpatrick MP
      • John Christodoulou
      • Justin Bates
      • Justin Madders MP
      • Law Commission
      • LEASE
      • Liam Spender
      • Local authority leasehold
      • London Assembly
      • Louie Burns
      • Martin Paine
      • McCarthy and Stone
      • Moskovitz / Gurvits
      • Mulberry Mews
      • National Leasehold Campaign
      • Oakland Court
      • Park Homes
      • Parliament
      • Persimmon
      • Peverel
      • Philip Rainey QC
      • Plantation Wharf
      • Press
      • Property tribunal
      • Prostitutes
      • Quadrangle House
      • Redrow
      • Retirement
      • Richard Davidoff
      • RICS
      • Right To Manage Federation
      • Roger Southam
      • Rooftop development
      • RTM
      • Sean Powell
      • SFO
      • Shared ownership
      • Sinclair Gardens Investments
      • Sir Ed Davey
      • Sir Peter Bottomley
      • St George’s Wharf
      • Subletting
      • Taylor Wimpey
      • Tchenguiz
      • Warwick Estates
      • West India Quay
      • William Waldorf Astor
      • Windrush Court
  • Parliament
  • Accreditation
You are here: Home / News / Cladding scandal / Brokenshire tells freeholders to pay up to remove Grenfell cladding. But how can that work?

Brokenshire tells freeholders to pay up to remove Grenfell cladding. But how can that work?

November 29, 2018 //  by Sebastian O'Kelly

The government is persisting with its argument that “building owners” must pay up to remove Grenfell cladding from their sites – even though the law has said that they don’t pay, leaseholders do.

The statement today from Communities Secretary James Brokenshire says:

“Local authorities will get the government’s full backing, including financial support if necessary, to enable them to carry out emergency work on affected private residential buildings with unsafe ACM cladding.

“They will recover the costs from building owners. This will allow buildings to be made permanently safe without delay.

“The government is already fully funding the replacement of unsafe ACM cladding on social sector buildings above 18 metres.

“Secretary of State for Communities, Rt Hon James Brokenshire MP said:

“Everyone has a right to feel safe in their homes and I have repeatedly made clear that building owners and developers must replace dangerous ACM cladding. And the costs must not be passed on to leaseholders.

“My message is clear – private building owners must pay for this work now or they should expect to pay more later.”

Government bans combustible materials on high-rise homes

Combustible materials ban follows announcement in the summer Local authorities to carry out emergency remediation work on private residential buildings above 18 metres which still contain ACM cladding Costs to be recovered from building owners The government is banning combustible materials on new high-rise homes and giving support to local authorities to carry out emergency work to remove and replace unsafe aluminium composite material ( ACM) cladding.

Councils cleared to rip Grenfell-style cladding from private buildings

Housing secretary gives authorities power to remove panels and bill landlords


It is uncertain how this works.

So far, developers have paid to remove cladding: Barratt at Citiscape; Bellway at New Festival Quarter; Taylor Wimpey at Glasgow Harbour.

The warranty provider NHBC is paying up at New Capital Quay, built by Galliard, although it may be the developer is stumping up for some of this.

But it is difficult to see how a company such as Pemberstone Reversions (5) Limited finds several million pounds to remove cladding at Cypress Place and Vallea Court.

That leaves aside the property tribunal has ruled that it does not need to do so in the first place:

£3m Grenfell cladding bills fall on residents at Lendlease’s Cypress Place and Vallea Court

Australian giant Lendlease built the sites, and could sub the freeholders.

But what of Heysmoor Heights, in Liverpool, where the builder long went bust, and the freehold is owned by anonymous beneficiaries of Abacus Land 4 Limited in Guernsey, which is part of the Long Harbour fund?

If freeholders have a whip round and get the government out of this mess, what will they expect in return?

Why should Will Astor, Tchenguiz etc be paying to remove Grenfell cladding?

The government announcement is excellent news for the leaseholders in Nova House in Slough, where the council in an unexplained arrangement acquired the freehold for £1 – a freehold for which freeholder Robert Steinhouse had earlier paid £455,000.

Somehow or other, one suspects the leaseholders at Nova House – apparently many Singaporean and Hong Kong investors among them – will get their cladding removal paid for by taxpayers. They were in tribunal yesterday disputing the costs to pay for fire marshalls.

But that owes more to the astonishing stupidity of Slough Council, rather than Mr Brokenshire’s repeated exhortations that “building owners” pay up.

Government thinking freeholders are paternalistic long-term custodians of a building is where it has gone wrong over Grenfell cladding

Related posts:

Paddington Walk leaseholders have paid £3.5m to remove Grenfell cladding, with more to come … Brokenshire wrongly says freeholders have paid for Grenfell cladding removal fatcat freeholdersFatcat freeholders SHAMED by MHCLG for having no plan to remove Grenfell cladding from their buildings include Long Harbour and James Tuttiett John Healey says it’s ‘wrong’ for leaseholders to have to pay to remove Grenfell cladding MHCLG ‘fundamentally flawed’ in expecting freeholders to pay for Grenfell cladding removal, LKP tells the FT

Category: Cladding scandal, Latest News, News, William Waldorf AstorTag: Abacus Land 4 Limited, Cypress Place, Heysmoor Heights, James Brokenshire, Lendlease, Nova House, Vallea Court, Will Astor

Latest Tweets

Tweets by @LKPleasehold

Mentions

Anthony Essien (34) APPG (37) ARMA (87) Bellway (30) Benjamin Mire (32) Cladding scandal (71) Clive Betts MP (31) CMA (45) Commonhold (52) Competition and Markets Authority (41) Countryside Properties plc (33) FirstPort (42) Grenfell cladding (56) Ground rents (54) Harry Scoffin (150) James Brokenshire MP (31) Jim Fitzpatrick (35) Jim Fitzpatrick MP (30) Justin Bates (40) Justin Madders MP (67) Katie Kendrick (37) Law Commission (60) LEASE (66) Leasehold Advisory Service (62) Leasehold houses (32) Long Harbour (48) Martin Boyd (80) McCarthy and Stone (39) National Leasehold Campaign (38) Persimmon (49) Peverel (61) Property tribunal (49) Redrow (30) Retirement (37) Robert Jenrick (33) Roger Southam (47) Sajid Javid (38) Sebastian O’Kelly (55) Sir Peter Bottomley (201) Taylor Wimpey (106) Tchenguiz (33) The Guardian (33) The Times (31) Vincent Tchenguiz (43) Waking watch contracts (40)
Previous Post: « The Economist notes LKP’s agenda to reform leasehold
Next Post: Slough Council v Benji the Binman over Grenfell cladding costs at Nova House »

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. chas

    November 29, 2018 at 9:26 pm

    How many times have us leaseholders heard government persisting with its argument that “Building Owners” yes Building Owners MUST PAY to remove the similar Grenfell Cladding from their sites – even though the law has said that they don’t pay, leaseholders do.

    What does this do to the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) and the Judges and Chairman who have already decided that the law is on the Freeholders side and committed them selves (Night of the long knives) to show solidarity to the masters.

    The FTT has shown its hand, how will it recover or should it be replaced by a fairer system that takes into account the leaseholders. Companies such as McCarthy & Stone in the 1980s, who used Peverel Retirement now Firstport Retirement who have decided to transferred Operating Costs to Service Charges without informing us.

    Latest scam is to charge for another Telephone Line, along with another cost for the Broadband. This allows the Development Manager to have access to a computer in the Development Managers Flat. Firstport have obviously not heard of Mobile Phones that can do the same thing.

    Our telephone costs have risen from £51 per month – line rental charges,(£612 a year) without a call been made. On the Trial Balance/Audit Trail we paid £1,121.16 this year. We have been without a Residential House Manager (RHM) in 2013 who was sacked for Gross Misconduct.

    Since July 2018 we do not have a Development Manager (DM) at all, but we do have a new line and broadband connection now, but we do not have a DM. It has cost us £509.16 (£42.43 a month) for this new line and broadband connection, and calls by the DM for what is supposed be business calls. No reimbursement have been forthcoming for private calls, having informed our Area Manager early in the year – todate he has not checked or refunded a penny.

  2. Paddy

    November 29, 2018 at 11:13 pm

    Curious.

    On one hand Mr B. Says he can’t interfere with existing leases because they are contracts. Well done for spotting that.

    On other hand, Mr B now rewriting leases and leasehold tenure to boot.

    Freeholders are not owners ( hold an immediate interest in) of buildings. Leastways not by virtue of buying said buildings. Freeholders buy a reversionary interest in the buildings, meaning what “reversionary” rights means – when leases expire.

    Meanwhile leases usually pass all costs incurred by landlord to lessees – taxes, repairs, unforeseen liabilities etc.

    If Mr B has the legal power to block this liability for enforcement of cladding remedies, we have no leasehold crisis. Hurrah. Mr B can just block all the other exploitative terms of leases.

    Nice to feel the present SoS understands leasehold tenure, mind. No moral arguments needed now?

  3. chas

    November 30, 2018 at 1:05 am

    Curious.
    Mr B. Said he can’t interfere with existing leases, then says he will challenge existing leases and leasehold tenure?
    Not all Freeholds have sold on the developments be it Flat or House or Large Blocks with Commercial Interests.

    The reasonable passing on all costs incurred by landlord to lessees has always been acceptable. The unreasonable costs for taxes, repairs, unforeseen liabilities etc is not acceptable.

    If the liability for enforcement of cladding remedies, we have no leasehold crisis is not correct. We still have the 25 years of leasehold by Firstport/Peverel Managing Agent and McCarthy & Stone who between them were outed in circa 1992/3 as being unfair to residents as they were Managing Agents able to charge what they could get away with as business does.

    I don’t understand (Nice to feel the present SoS understands leasehold tenure, mind. No moral arguments needed now?)

  4. Nikki

    December 3, 2018 at 9:00 am

    Maybe the heading should be ‘ Brokenshire plays Father Christmas’.

    Think he knows his turkey won’t fly but words cost him nothing.

Above Footer

Advising leaseholders. Avoiding disasters.
Stopping forfeiture. Exposing abuses. Urging reform.

We depend on individuals for the majority of our funding.

Support Us and Donate

LKP Managing Agents

Become an LKP Managing Agent

Common Ground
Adam Church
Blocnet property management2

Stay in Touch

To achieve victory in the leasehold game where you are playing against professionals and with rules that they know all too well - stay informed with the LKP newsletter.
Sign Up for Newsletter

Professional Directory

The following advertisements are from firms that seek business from leaseholders.
Click on the logos for company profiles.

Footer

About LKP

  • What is LKP
  • Privacy and data

Categories

  • News
  • Cladding scandal
  • Commonhold
  • Law Commission
  • Fleecehold
  • Parliament
  • Press
  • APPG

Contact

Leasehold Knowledge Partnership
Open Data Institute
5th Floor
Kings Place
London N1 9AG

sok@leaseholdknowledge.com

Copyright © 2023 Leasehold Knowledge Partnership | All rights reserved
Leasehold Knowledge Partnership Limited (company number: 08999652) is a company limited by guarantee that is a registered charity (number: 1162584) with the Charities Commission.
LKP website is hosted at www.34sp.com
Website by Callia Web