“For residents in private sector buildings identified as having this accelerant-type cladding we were often hopeful and encouraged by Government assurances from James Brokenshire and Kit Malthouse, that the cost will be met, not by leaseholders, but by the freeholder or developers. In a statement regarding this issue, Brokenshire threatened that if they did not “do the right thing”, they may be banned from public sector contracts in the future – the threat stated that if developers did not do the right thing sooner, they would face the consequences later.
“This hope turned to despair as we were taken to a First-Tier Tribunal by our freeholders so that they could seek to confirm if they could legally claim back, from leaseholders, the cost of any remediation works.
“For us, the frightening confirmation that we would liable to pay the cost of making our homes safe arrived with the Tribunal’s legally binding decision in late July 2018. The ruling, citing the sweeping clause contained in most leases, informed us that cladding replacement costs (and associated costs of waking watch) could legally be reclaimed via the service charge provision. It was legally justifiable, but morally indefensible …”
We want our lives back, we want this nightmare to end – Greater Manchester Housing Action
By Green Quarter residents (@GqrMcr) For 18 months residents living in the Green Quarter, Manchester, have been living with the knowledge that two of our blocks have the type of cladding that is “more flammable than petrol”; the same cladding that facilitated the Grenfell Tower fire to take hold so rapidly and with such devastating …
A powerful article from leaseholders in Manchester’s Green Quarter, with the Grenefell cladding sites Vallea Court and Cyprus Place, build by Australian giant Lendlease.
Here is Professor Susan Bright, calling for government intervention on Twitter today:
Those living in unsafe blocks are in an impossible situation. The government has to intervene. It is a major safety issue. We cannot have another Grenfell. This blog shows how all consuming it is trying to get help @GqrMcr https://t.co/LRrrFYlPoj
— Sue Bright (@suejbright) January 20, 2019
£3m Grenfell cladding bills fall on residents at Lendlease’s Cypress Place and Vallea Court
Related posts:
£3m Grenfell cladding bills fall on residents at Lendlease’s Cypress Place and Vallea Court
Fury in Manchester as Lendlease wins £160m contract to refurb city hall, while dumping Grenfell cladding costs on leaseholders
Ground rent speculators Pemberstone seek £3m tribunal ruling over Grenfell cladding
Lendlease caves in over £5m Grenfell cladding bills at Vallea Court and Cypress Place
20,000 leaseholders trapped in blocks with Grenfell cladding, says Telegraph
LKP persuades government to allow commonhold tenure on Help To Buy
Green Quarter Residents
The Government knows of your plight but refuses to acknowledge the wording in most, if not all leases that of REASONABLE. Leases are set out and Supposed to cover All REASONABLE OBLIGATIONS a Resident Leaseholder has to pay in Service Charges to the Landlord as well as Rent.
It also states:
Service Charges are Amounts Payable For:
*Services
*Repairs
*Maintenance
*Improvements
*Insurance for Rebuilding
*Landlords Cost to Manage
A Lease also states that “to the extent that the costs have been REASONABLY INCURED”.
In The Green Quarter Manchester, Residents have been living with the knowledge that two blocks have the same ACM3 type of cladding along with designs that facilitated the Grenfell Tower Fire.
use of this cladding, had previously been implicated in other similar tragedies, shows the lack of concern shown by the Government and The Construction Industry.
Leases also allow, Residents to ask the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) to determine whether the Leaseholder are Liable to Pay Service Charges for the same items mentioned above.
This FTT being one of the lowest Courts in the Land, made decisions that are totally UNREASONABLE as was expected as they have for years been biased against Leaseholders.
It is now January 2019, most buildings have been identified as having ACM3 panels. 18 months or so post-Grenfell, remain largely in place even though NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE, WHY.
Financially the Green Quarter Residents can not sell or remortgage flats until the ACM3 Panels have been replaced. Government assurances from James Brokenshire and Kit Malthouse, that the cost will be met, not by Leaseholders, but The Freeholder or Developers. (I would include the Landlord in this as they have a HEAD LEASE and are eventually responsible to Freeholders).
James Brokenshire threatened, if Freeholders/Landlords/Developers did not “do the right thing”, they would face consequences later. This hope turned to despair as they were taken to a FTT by Freeholders, seeking to confirm, they (Freeholders) were not responsible for cost of any Faulty Remediation Works?
.
When has it been stated that Sweeping Clauses contained in most leases, that Cladding Replacement Costs (and associated costs of waking watch) could legally be reclaimed via the Service Charge provision. Was it Legally Justifiable at such a lower Court, can be seen as Legally Morally Indefensible. Rubbing salt into the wounds Freeholder’s Legal Costs of around £40k for taking the Residents to the FTT could also be claimed, through Service Charges.
The initial Cost to replace the ACM3 was in the region of £3million pounds, now after Tendering the cost has escalated to c£5million pounds Each Resident to find £18,000. This can not be REASONABLE??? – The Developer – Lendlease and Freeholder – Pemberstone have been pressured to fund the replacement ACM3 by Council Officers and others to prevent this UNREASONABLE outcome, where Freeholders transfer all responsibility on us the Little Man/Woman because they think Leaseholders do not know how to fight injustices, they are about to find out.
Lendlease £750million pounds profit last year, have been awarded a £160million pound refurbishment of Manchester Town Hall, and even bigger Public Works Contract at Birmingham City Council worth £1.5billion pounds. So much for James Brokenshire and his threats, to do the right thing or later face sanctions.
How is it REASONABLE to make Leaseholders pay for works that they have had no say or undertaken works that have now been condemned as NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE.
Is it not a reasonable course of action to expect the freeholder to pursue as far as possible a claim against the manufacture of the cladding. The manufacture of the cladding would normally carry product liability insurance. This is a course of action which surprisingly gets overlooked
Stephen can you confirm
Is it a reasonable course of action to expect the Freeholder to pursue as far as possible a claim against the manufacture of the cladding, before taking the case to a FTT which decided Unfairly and Unreasonably that individual Leaseholders who do not own the development other than a long term lease.
Manufactures of CMA3 cladding, would carry Product Liability Insurance, why has this received so little coverage.
Building Control was heavily involved, yet receive little coverage, these also have Liability Insurance.
Architects carry Product Liability and pay an Indemnity Premium against Liability for Design and Materials used, also have received little coverage.
Building Contractors also take out Liability Insurance for defects occurring, little coverage of this also.
Poor Resident Leaseholders, have been singled out because, it has been said they are easy pickings and do not want confrontation. This mood has now changed and it has become clear the power of the Freeholder/Landlord and the Courts biased against correctly finding the Freeholder/Landlord/Managing Agent who undertook the contracts to Refurbish using cheap NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE MATERIALS.
chas Retired – Building Control Officer/Health & Safety Consultant