At least 20 private blocks affected
Bills for fire marshals at one site have reached £16,000 a week
Citiscape leaseholders in front of new fire safety equipment. Two fire wardens are permanently on site at a cost – to whom? – of £20,000 a month
Leaseholders in the Citiscape block of flats in Croydon face a £750,000 – £1 million bill to remove the same insulation cladding involved in the Grenfell Tower fire.
Two fire marshals are employed 24/7 at £5,000 a week to keep a vigil on the 97 flats in Frith Road, where the freeholder is Proxima GR, part of the Tchenguiz Family Trust entities ultimately based in the British Virgin Islands.
In total £20,000 a month is being spent on fire marshals with another £3,000 on car parking as one level of the car park is now unusable.
Citiscape in Croydon is one of around 20 private apartment blocks with the same defective cladding as Grenfell Tower
At other private sites in London the bills are even higher: £16,000 a week in one case.
FirstPort, which manages Citiscape, has alerted the leaseholders to a £500,000 cash call and wants to go to tribunal for a ruling that this is correct.
Indeed, a demand for £5,000 was issued and paid by direct debit by some leaseholders before it was retracted.
What FirstPort seeks to avoid is any cost to itself or the freeholder before liability is established.
FirstPort, which changed its name from Peverel (the criticisms of LKP and Carlex, now www.BetterRetirementHousing.com played their part), was owned by the Tchenguiz interests, which meant they managed their own freeholds.
This happy state of affairs ended with the wrongful arrests of Vincent and Robert Tchenguiz in March 2011 by the Serious Fraud Office. This pitched the company into administration and it now belongs to venture capitalists Chamonix and Electra.
LKP is assisting the leaseholders at Citiscape, who do not as yet have a recognised tenants association. Although 46 leaseholders have formed a group the FirstPort executive on the ground has said that a tribunal process will be required before it is recognised.
Under the circumstances, LKP would argue that normal game-playing obstructiveness be avoided in this case and that the residents’ association be recognised as soon as possible.
The block was built in 2002 by Barratt, and the cladding was signed off as safe. It is now deemed unsafe by fire safety and must come down.
There may be some public liability owing to the inconsistent regulations.
Meanwhile, there is common interest for the leaseholders and FirstPort to resolve matters and get the works started as soon as possible.
Works are likely to take 18 to 24 months; none of the leaseholders believe that £500,000 will cover the total cost, and there is only £35,000 in the reserve fund.
Sales at the sight are stalled, although at least two flats are on the market.
Until the cladding issue was raised – two weeks after the Grenfell fire – one-bed flats at Citiscape sold for around £265,000.
Croydon tower blocks with cladding that failed the government fire safety test
Residents at one of the five Croydon properties with cladding which did not pass the government’s fire safety test have been told to not stay put anymore if a blaze breaks out. The names of remaining four buildings which have failed cladding tests after the Grenfell Tower fire have not been released publicly until the Advertiser asked the council this week.
Related posts:
DCLG urged to inform leaseholders over Grenfell cladding bills … and stop snubbing LKP 
Blenheim Centre flat owners to be spared £20,000-30,000 each on Grenfell cladding bill, Legal & General tells LKP 
Tribunal rules Citiscape leaseholders must pay to remove Grenfell cladding. Will this mean some lose their homes? Barratt pays out to remove Grenfell cladding at Citiscape 
John Healey says it’s ‘wrong’ for leaseholders to have to pay to remove Grenfell cladding
So once again totally innocent leaseholders are being told to pick up the bill for a situation they have absolutely no control of whatsoever?
Yes, the dangerous cladding must be replaced as a priority. But why is it not the builder who installed the dangerous cladding that takes the responsibility? if their argument is that the cladding was passed as safe then surely the builders have a claim against those that passed it as safe? Of course in this instance Peverel/Firstport are not to blame for the cladding, nevertheless as reported on About Peverel if they charge their usual management fee they stand to make £50,000 from changing the cladding. Not bad for a deeply in debt company!
Of course this is not the only earner that has fallen into Peverel/Firstport’s lap?
Take the Blandfield development in Edinburgh that was built by Barratt..
Owners were left unaware that a Victorian wall on the development boundary belonged to them. They believed it belonged to Railtrack. Even Firstport the managing agent appeared to be unaware that the wall belonged to the development. After the wall fell into disrepair the council put an emergency repair notice on it, so a temporary repair was effected. Then the arguments ensued as to whose wall it was? Finally Railtrack threatened court action if the wall was not properly repaired. and Firstport caved in.
This naturally suited the freeholder, the managing agent and Railtrack.
It led to the responsibility for repairs to be passed to the leaseholders(many elderly and disabled) And of course was yet another unexpected “earner” for Peverel/Firstport.
The poor leaseholders were given 28 days to find around £6,000 each or face debt recovery action.
Don’t you just love leasehold?
Hold on, Scourge. Edinburgh? Leasehold?
Admin 1 Scourge 0 !
is there no recourse against Barratt Developments? The limitation period surely starts from the time the defect first became apparent; which was when post Grenfell, when cladding of this type, approved by Building Control and BRE was discovered to be deleterious
Apparently Barratt Developments “Sympathise with the residents”
I agree with ME, why is it not the builder who installed the dangerous cladding that takes the responsibility? if their argument is that the cladding was passed as safe then surely the builders have a claim against those that passed it as safe?
On a second point the above article states ” Two fire marshals are employed 24/7 at £5,000 a week to keep a vigil on the 97 flats in Frith Road”
Two people cost £5k per week,Somebodies having a laugh surely.
Are these marshals and/or their employers jumping on the bandwagon of ripping leaseholders off yet again.
How many flat owners, is the £750000 the amount to cover “20 blocks” ?
It is true Vincent Tchenguiz was wrongly arrested and he subsequently won a small percentage of the damages he was claiming, It is often said that it was due to this arrest Peverel was pitched into administration.. Whilst technically this is true, the reality was that Peverel connected group companies were already defaulting on loan guarantees before Vincent Tchenguiz was arrested .This may go a long way to explaining why his damages ended up being set at around 1% of what had been claimed.
Currently loans granted to Peverel (now known as Firstport) by Electra & Chammonix are charged at interest rates of between 9% and 15%. In addition Electra & Chammonix are charging Firstport very hefty administration fees (around £300,000 pa). If that was not bad enough, their bankers have insisted their overdraft is reduced by £1,000.000 every 6 months. And if that is not bad enough many of the Firstport divisions are either loss making or profits have been reduced, with only one or two divisions trading reasonably well.. The Firstport parent company(Knight Square) is showing a negative value of £-35,000,00 (despite an upward valuation of their assets)
Without the Grenfell disaster no one would have known the dangers. Therefore there appears to be an issue under the Limitation period. As for the Builders this is there financial mess to rederess not the Lessees. Who ever signed everything off as is liable – not the Lessees.
B, Without the Grenfell disaster people did know about the dangers It was just that before the Grenfell disaster they could keep quiet about it.,
Indeed Mr E. I thoroughly agree with you and I believe that ‘B’ engages finger with thought. I choose to disregard any of her her/ His utterances
Complete waste of time In MY view.
Ooops typo. Meant “ B engages finger WITHOUT thought” ( In my opinion)
My mistake here, was that supposed to be an engaging comment? Clearly not.
Leasehold tenants must pay whatever the bill even if it leads to bankruptcy and eviction.
It is English law. The colonies like Scotland, Ireland, India, Australia etc saw the injustice and got rid leasehold opression.
Maybe Javid will act for the many but he’s taking his time.
Dear Fleased
Do not despair, The Times they are a changing! I honestly believe 5hat this is the “ Harvey Weinstein’ moment for the Predators in Residential Property.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.
I hope you have signed and shared the online petition to:
REGULATE MANAGING AGENTS and ABOLISH LEASEHOLD.
Heysmoor Heights in Toxteth, Liverpool, Leaseholders in exactly the same situation. The 98 leaseholders are faced with bills totaling £18,000,over two years, to replace the condemned cladding and pay for the (very expensive) fire wardens. Grainger PLC are the leaseholders of 60 flats in the building. It seems odd that they are accepting the situation without a fight. I do not have £18k and will have to sell (if possible) at a loss and allow my disabled tenant (my son) to return home….
Freeholders are Abacus Land 4 Ltd, based, of course, in Guernsey.
Local MP looking into the situation, and has written to Javid. No reply as yet.