• 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 / Slough council takes Nova House leaseholders to tribunal over Grenfell cladding costs

Slough council takes Nova House leaseholders to tribunal over Grenfell cladding costs

August 2, 2018 //  by Sebastian O'Kelly

We are only billing leaseholders for the fire marshals not Grenfell cladding removal, says Slough

Council is understood to have bought the freehold to the stricken site for £1 – officially, a ‘nominal fee’ – off freehold investor Robert Steinhouse

Liverpool debt collectors JB Leitch to take the tribunal action

Outside Slough Council, The Office is generally considered to be a parody

Leaseholders at Nova House which has Grenfell cladding are the latest to be taken to tribunal to pay up for the associated costs, this time by Slough Council.

The council says the action only relates to paying for the fire marshals, who have been at the site for a year.

In a further twist, it is understood that the council is only the freeholder because it paid £1 for the freehold to ground rent speculator Robert Steinhouse on 7th March this year. The reason for this is as yet unexplained, but the council says it paid a “nominal fee” for Ground Rents Estates 5 Limited.

“However, we have not stated publicly the exact cost. GRE5 [Ground Rents Estates 5 Limited] is now wholly owned by the council.”

 

In correspondence with LKP – copied to Communities Secretary James Brokenshire, Housing Minister Kit Malthouse and LKP’s patron MPs – Slough seeks to make a distinction between having the leaseholders pay for the fire marshals and making them pay for the removal of the cladding.

“At no point in the letter have we stated anything linking cladding with a tribunal,” says the Slough Council spokesperson for GRE5  Limited [Ground Rents Estates 5 Limited], the freehold-owning vehicle for Nova House.

“Indeed the cladding comments in the letter relate to the service charges where the previous owners of GRE5 [Ground Rents Estates 5 Limited] had added a reserve for cladding. We were confirming this was not something leaseholders needed to pay now Slough Borough Council has taken over GRE5 [Ground Rents Estates 5 Limited].”

Slough Council argues that LKP’s report linking its legal action at Nova House over the fire marshals’ bill with those concerning Vallea Court and Cypress Place in Manchester last month is inaccurate.

Slough Council suggested that LKP remove references to Slough from the article and wait for a full response from the directors of Ground Rents Estates 5 Limited next week.

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

The LKP trustees decline to do so, as there has been sufficient waiting for Slough Council to make its position clear over Nova House for some months.

Martin Boyd, LKP trustee, told Slough Council:

“I would respectfully suggest your position conflicts totally with your letter sent to leaseholders on 23rd July: “we have instructed JB Leitch Limited to make an application to the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) to determine the reasonableness and payability of the fire marshals as part of the service charge”.

“I am afraid we have waited for many months for Slough to respond to emails. We will note Slough’s decision not to respond save for your claim that you are somehow not initiating an FTT related to cladding costs despite the contents of your letter dated 23rd July.”

In addition, LKP has been shown a budget statement for Nova House sent to leaseholders by the commercial management company at the site showing an annual budget of £1,999,010 for 2018 compared with £182,016 last year.

The increase is £312,000 for firewardens and £1,550,281 to go to the contingency fund, presumably to pay towards cladding.

Slough Council’s correspondence with LKP adds that “it is unfortunate you have chosen such a combative stance towards Ground Rents Estates 5 Limited and the council, in particular when the council stepped in and took control of Nova House to work with the leaseholders and their tenants to ensure their safety and future; when no one else could, or would”.

In fact, ministers have repeatedly suggested that developers and freeholders absorb the costs of Grenfell cladding removal and “do the decent thing”.

Someone is going to have to pay to remove the Grenfell cladding at Nova Heights. The open question is still: Who?

The general ministerial view seems to be that housebuilders and investor freeholders coin so much money out of the leasehold system that they might as well pay up to put right the Grenfell cladding.

That’s a bit too rough and ready for the property tribunal, however, which has to interpret the law.

Nor could it be said about Slough Council – or its council taxpayers – which have for some reason taken on the burden of Nova House.

LKP’s concern is that the Cityscape case in Croydon – resolved after Barratt stepped in to pay for the cladding removal at a site it built in 2003 – started with the initial estimate of the landlord’s costings for firewatch at about £500,000.

It was just after the leaseholders made their witness statements that those costs jumped to about £2.5 million to cover the cladding replacement as well.

The directors of Ground Rents Estates 5 Limited are:

Robert Neale Cooper Head of Finance (Transformation) Slough Borough Council
Mike England Strategic Director Regeneration, Housing and Resources Slough Borough Council
Stephen Gibson Head of Asset Management Slough Borough Council

The letter from Slough Council to leaseholders is here:

slough cladding

Related posts:

Slough Council v Benji the Binman over Grenfell cladding costs at Nova House Ground rent speculator Robert Steinhouse cuts and runs from Nova House, but who pays £4m Grenfell bill? £3m Grenfell cladding bills fall on residents at Lendlease’s Cypress Place and Vallea Court Tribunal rules Citiscape leaseholders must pay to remove Grenfell cladding. Will this mean some lose their homes? Brokenshire tells freeholders to pay up to remove Grenfell cladding. But how can that work?

Category: Cladding scandal, HomeSlider, JB Leitch, Latest News, NewsTag: JB Leitch, Martin Boyd, Nova House, Robert Steinhouse, Slough Council

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: « £3m Grenfell cladding bills fall on residents at Lendlease’s Cypress Place and Vallea Court
Next Post: LKP’s essential leasehold guide in The Sunday Times … feel free to add »

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. chas

    August 3, 2018 at 12:55 pm

    Martin
    In the correspondence with LKP you mentioned – Slough seeks to make a distinction between having the leaseholders pay for the fire marshals and making them pay for the removal of the cladding.
    They stated
    “At no point in the letter have we stated anything linking cladding with a tribunal,”
    Yet in the next paragraph they state:

    Additionally, we are in the process of defining the programme of works that will bring the building up to an acceptable safety standard, and for that reason we will not be expecting leaseholders to pay the costs of the removal and replacement of cladding until we have determined the actual cost of the works programme.

    Is this misleading – a tribunal or not – from the above paragraph:
    “UNTIL WE HAVE DETERMINED THE ACTUAL COSTS”

    Is this not saying – Slough Council expect leaseholders will pay for the cladding?

    • admin

      August 3, 2018 at 12:57 pm

      You are not wrong, Chas

      • chas

        August 5, 2018 at 4:15 pm

        admin, also:

        Oxford City Council (OCC) publicised a project that primarily aimed to improve tower blocks and surrounding area. OCCs tower blocks refurbishment could be seen as part of larger plans to regenerate disadvantaged parts of Oxford.
        When the legal issues regarding costs, OCC reasons notably changed in response to wider events. Instead of using the word Improve’ it began using the words Repair & Maintenance.

        The focus of OCCs narrative changed again, following the fire at Grenfell Tower and decided to add Sprinkler Systems in the buildings, as well as updating the Fire Alarms and new Fire Doors.

        The First Tier Tribunal (FTT) heard evidence from both OCC, claiming the works had been necessary as Maintenance & Repair, whilst the leaseholders argued most of the work was improvement.

        The FTT decision was in this case favourable to leaseholders, ruling most of the work undertaken on the Tower Blocks constituted improvement; New windows – Winter gardens – Replacement roofing, – Insulation and Cladding were all considered to be Non Essential works counting as an Improvement.

        Works such as maintenance of: Balcony roofs & floors, concrete and wall ties, work to lifts were considered recoverable through Service Charge provisions in the leases. The original bills that Oxford City Council delivered to leaseholders in the region of £40,000 to £60,000, later were dramatically reduced to £2,500 to £4,000

  2. Michael Epstein

    August 3, 2018 at 8:18 pm

    Forgive me if this sounds a little simplistic?
    Slough Council have bought a worthless freehold of Nova House for £1..
    The reason the freehold is worthless is due to the cladding situation?
    Once replaced, Nova House will again become a valuable freehold.
    The beneficiary will be Slough Council?
    So, if Slough Council can get leaseholders to pay for fire wardens and then get leaseholders to pay for the replacement cladding for a £1 outlay they do stand to make a substantial windfall do they not?

    • Michael Hollands

      August 3, 2018 at 9:49 pm

      The Maidenhead Advertiser in March 2018 stated the following.
      Slough Borough Council have taken over Nova House due to fears for the safety of residents due to the cladding failing a fire safety test.
      So has this action been taken for the genuine benefit and safety of its residents or in the hope that the residents will have to pay themselves for the safety works and fire wardens leaving Slough Borough Council with a safe and valuable building.at a cost of £1.

      • chas

        August 4, 2018 at 1:42 am

        Michael Hollands

        The Maidenhead Advertiser in March 2018 stated Slough Borough Council have taken over Nova House due to fears for the safety of residents due to the cladding failing a fire safety test.

        Has this action been taken for the genuine benefit and safety of its residents?

        Will the residents be expected to pay for the safety works and fire wardens, as a Local Authority did they really have a choice?

        Do we know why ground rent speculator Robert Steinhouse gave up this development for a nominal fee?

  3. S McDonald

    August 3, 2018 at 10:49 pm

    Hopefully Slough Council will follow government guidance and pay the costs of fire wardens and cladding instead of their current policy. If they made a precedent they could sell the individual freeholds to the leaseholders. This would then make the building safe and entfranchise the leaseholders.

  4. chas

    August 4, 2018 at 1:29 am

    S McDonald
    Posting “Hopefully Slough Council will follow government guidance and pay the costs of fire wardens and cladding”?

    Do we know what is the Governments current policy?

    • Michael Hollands

      August 4, 2018 at 9:34 am

      According to a report in The Guardian January 2018, the cost of making the building safe was £4million. A sum which apparently the then freeholder could not afford.
      So it was agreed the Slough Borough Council should take ownership and complete the works.
      But of course their funds are seriously depleted due to Government austerity policies, so they now have to make a decision on paying the £4million and cutting services to allow this cost to be met.

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