• 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 / MHCLG ‘fundamentally flawed’ in expecting freeholders to pay for Grenfell cladding removal, LKP tells the FT

MHCLG ‘fundamentally flawed’ in expecting freeholders to pay for Grenfell cladding removal, LKP tells the FT

December 5, 2018 //  by Sebastian O'Kelly

The FT today reports that government hopes that speculators in residential freeholds – especially anonymous ones hidden offshore – are unlikely to pay up to remove Grenfell cladding.

The article coincided with reports of Places for People, freeholder of Leeds Saxton, issuing a non-repayable loan to leaseholders and pursuing a claim against warranty provider NHBC. Places for People acquired the freehold in 2013, but it is unknown at this stage whether developer  Urban Splash will be contributing to this cost.

Communities Secretary at DHCLG James Brokenshire last week said local authorities would have “full backing, including financial support if necessary” to reclad private buildings, adding “They will recover the costs from building owners.”

This means that the government still somehow believes that the freeholders should pay for cladding removal, even though in every case that has come before the property tribunal the bill has been – inevitably – dumped on the leaseholders.

Martin Boyd, trustee of LKP, said:

“The government’s approach seems fundamentally flawed in allowing the developer to absolve themselves of something which can only be the responsibility of the developer or the government.”

Of 289 private-sector buildings in England – some in the same complexes – that are more than 18 metres high and clad with the flammable material, 102 have no plans in place to replace it.

Mr Boyd said that ground rents offer a relatively small income stream and investors buy the assets for a fraction of the multi-million-pound cost of the recladding.

While Barratt and Taylor Wimpey have paid to reclad buildings they constructed, even where they no longer own the freehold, and Taylor Wimpey has set aside £30m this year for that purpose, others such as Lendlease, Berkeley Homes and Ballymore, have so far refused to pay.

The FT article also quotes Susan Bright, professor of land law at Oxford University – who has spoken at several LKP meetings – saying in a blog post: “It is not clear why all freeholders, particularly if not the developer or original owner, should have to pay . . . We are talking about a problem caused by a systemic failure in fire safety regulation and construction methods and standards.”

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 Tchenguiz group dismisses government ‘hollow threat’ to make freeholders pay 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 Brokenshire tells freeholders to pay up to remove Grenfell cladding. But how can that work?

Category: Cladding scandal, Latest News, NewsTag: Ballymore, Barratt, Berkeley, Financial Times, James Brokenshire MP, Leeds Saxton, Martin Boyd, Professor Susan Bright, Taylor Wimpey, Urban Splash

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: « Slough Council v Benji the Binman over Grenfell cladding costs at Nova House
Next Post: LKP and Bottomley at Number 10 to reverse flawed reform of recognised tenants’ associations »

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Trevor Bradley

    December 5, 2018 at 1:54 pm

    ……………..responsibility of the developer or the government.”
    For government, replace with the words “Tax Payers” (No government has any money – it is all tax payers money.)
    Why should a tax payer, who has had nothing to do with these buildings pay for any cladding replacement

    • Simon

      December 5, 2018 at 2:01 pm

      Government bears some responsibility because of flawed building regulations. Developer and their insurers have main responsibility as well, but there will be the usual buck passing.

      • Stephen

        December 5, 2018 at 7:26 pm

        What about he manufacturers of the cladding why are they not being sued so they in turn , turn to their product liability insurers . The cladding is clearly not fit for purposes

  2. Michael Epstein

    December 5, 2018 at 9:57 pm

    My Michael Caine moment.”Not a lot of people know this?”
    Places for People have not paid to have the cladding removed and then charged leaseholders. Nor have they raised money from residents before carrying out the work.
    What they have done instead is to give a loan to leaseholders in order to fund the project
    How many leaseholders are aware that if a loan is granted, the borrowers lose their right to challenge?
    So the leaseholder by accepting the loan has accepted the position of the freeholder and thereby the leaseholder has forgone their right to challenge the freeholder. .

  3. Stephen

    December 6, 2018 at 12:40 pm

    Rather than use tax payers money the government should lend the freeholders the money with interest on the strict understanding that the costs of the works is not passed through the service charges just the interest lon the loan. The loan to be secured against the freehold

    The interest rate to be the sort of interest he government would expect if issuing Gilts ie around 2-3%

    Therefore rather than a lessee having to find £20k they may have to find £30 per month – not ideal but does move he problem on. Otherwise years of legal wrangling with the flats being unsaleable throughout the period and the stress of it all impinging on other facets of life

    The government get an ok rate of return on its funds – no cost to he tax payer and gets a problem off its plate

    A developer who uses materials signed off by building control should expect either the manufacturer to take ownership of the problem or the government for approving a material without proper testing.

  4. chas Willis

    December 12, 2018 at 8:12 pm

    Stephen you say rather than use tax payers money the government should lend the Freeholders the money with interest, and the strict understanding you mention is also ok.

    But to say that the Leaseholders should pay the interest @ 2-3 % – £30 a month is saying the Leaseholder is responsible for the defective work. As Senior Improvement Officer in the 1980s and Building Control Officer in 2000 (now retired) what part of any contract allows for anyone not directly involved in a contract can be held responsible.

    To say otherwise years of legal wrangling with the flats being unsaleable throughout the period and the stress of it all impinging on other facets of life, this wouldn’t happen if the Freeholder/Landlord coughed up then sued those who are linked to design and fix along with the Architect and Building Control as necessary.

    To glibly pass on the costs to Leaseholders is seen as the best way forward only by those who refuse to accept responsibility, Freeholder/Landlord. A developer who uses materials signed off by Building Control, can qualify the material used if it passes Part B. If material and design doesn’t comply then what part did the Leaseholder play in either choosing the design and materials, or in the fixing?

    The passing of materials as fixed and the correct material used is down to the Construction Team who should take ownership of the problem as they will have been Insured against this and paid an Indemnifying Insurance for just this purpose.

    • B

      January 8, 2019 at 5:59 pm

      Totally agree with your comments here. I have raised the issue of liability including insurance however these appear to be moot/mute points. People appear to lack the understanding of being able to either following the money or where ground zero lies.

  5. Vivien Aldred

    December 17, 2018 at 9:54 am

    I find it extremely irritating that this government department now calls itself a “Ministry” but at least get it right and don’t call it “DHCLG” in your heading!

    Maybe it is an attempt to remind people that McMillan’s government built large numbers of houses and that this government’s “Ministry” aims to emulate that goal.

    • admin

      December 17, 2018 at 10:12 am

      Thanks. Changed.

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