After Sajid Javid, James Brokenshire and Kit Malthouse … now the prime minister this afternoon insists that “building owners” will pay for Grenfell cladding removal.
The Tchenguiz group at Northpoint in Bromley has already dismissed this as a “hollow threat”.
It gets £7,000 a year in ground rents from the site – which is paid on to Rothesay Life, the liberalised pension fund investor. The Tchenguiz group’s income from the site, where there is a right to manage company in place, will very likely be a fraction of that.
In no sense are these speculators the building’s owners, still less the responsible long-term custodians: they are simply the owners of the income streams, which of course need to be ended.
12.25 Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
The Prime Minister promised after the Grenfell Tower fire that she would do whatever it takes to keep our people safe. Today, 19 months on, the vast majority—85%—of the hundreds of blocks draped in exactly the same highly flammable cladding are still covered in it.
The Shurgard fire in Croydon shows that Grenfell is just the tip of the iceberg. Thousands of council and private buildings across the country do not have sprinklers, despite the fire services saying they are essential.
The Government do not even collect data on the number of fires in tower blocks.
As the Prime Minister wastes billions on her no-deal gamble there is a stench of complacency about these things that matter too. When will the Prime Minister be able to tell this country that she has honoured her promise? [908736]
The Prime Minister
It is obviously very important for all of us that people are able to feel and be safe in their homes, and I understand residents’ concerns over this issue of cladding.
We fully expect building owners in the private sector to take action and make sure that appropriate safety measures are in place. Interim measures are in place where necessary on all of the 171 high-rise private residential buildings with the unsafe ACM—aluminium composite material—cladding, but permanent remediation is rightly the focus, and we have repeatedly called on private building owners not to pass costs on to leaseholders.
As a result of our interventions 212 owners have either started, completed or have commitments in place to remediate; 56 owners are refusing to remediate. We are maintaining pressure on this but we rule nothing out.
Inside Politics, 1.41, John Healey “time to rule things in, not rule things out” to sort out the cladding mess:
Politics Live – 23/01/2019
Jo Coburn and guests discuss the big political issues of the day.
Private Eye today:
Related posts:
Tchenguiz group dismisses government ‘hollow threat’ to make freeholders pay for Grenfell cladding removal
Prime Minister ‘not ruling anything out’ with freeholders and builders over responsibility for Grenfell cladding
Grenfell cladding debate: Who thinks offshore freeholders will pay (apart from government ministers)?
Post-Grenfell fire safety regime brings closer scrutiny of building owners … even shadey freeholders anonymously lurking in sunny tax havens
Government thinking freeholders are paternalistic long-term custodians of a building is where it has gone wrong over Grenfell cladding
‘Fleecehold’ estate management contracts are the latest fiddle from taxpayer-subsidised house builders
But who are the “owners?”
Are they the offshore companies who can transfer the “ownership” at a stoke of a pen?
Are they the financial institutions that hold debentures over the “owned” properties?
Are they the Geneva based specialists in maintaining businesses registered as trust funds?
Michael
You ask who are the owners?
Offshore Companies YES – Leaseholders – NO
Financial institutions YES – Leaseholders – NO
British Virgin Islands YES – Leaseholders – NO
If you’ve got any comments or thoughts on these activities, leave a comment
on our main news story today, or (if you’d prefer to comment confidentially),
emails to James Ball at The Guardian
UK companies with offshore directors – Territory
Isle of Man
Guernsey
Cyprus
Jersey
Dubai
British Virgin Island
Seychelles
St Kitts and Nevis
Mauritius
Cayman Islands
Sark
Vanuatu
Turks and Caicos
Note most have been Governed in the past by Britain???
Further to above.
July 2018
The British Empire is a thing of the distant past, out of the ashes a new, more destructive empire emerged. One that wasn’t set up to be Controlled or Tracked, that ensures the elite stay in control (such as Freeholders) and the ordinary person (Leaseholders) are kept down. The Spider’s Web is the story of Britain’s transformation from a colonial power to a financial power, exploring how the financial structures created by City of London financial interests lie at the heart of this transformation.
June 23, 2018
‘The Spiders Web: Britain’s Second Empire’ documents Britain’s central role in creating and orchestrating a web of Offshore Tax Havens that help the rich and powerful across the world, avoid their obligations to society, (as building owner’s of ACM Cladded Tower Blocks) to build up ever greater piles of wealth in companies incorporated in British Crown Dependencies such as Jersey, or Overseas Territories such as the British Virgin Isles.
So some may say the Labour Party may seem to have the right promotion but what about the article published by Christopher Howarth?
A labour supporter could be unhappy not to see an equivalent article published by labour?
I love the LKP website but go easy with the ‘political game’ rhetoric would you.
I know fevers are high, there’s almost a wake-up to brexit show on everyday and so forth.
It seems whipped up nearly 24-7 at the moment and in part its presented emotionally as a bi-tribal debate.
But are there really any labour/conservative or remain/leave divides amongst leasehold victims?
I don’t think there are.
Those who fall in to the leasehold traps are not discriminated against by any other commonality, they’re all just leaseholders, wearing some kind if wool,.
I’m also inclined to believe that successive governments have let the leaseholders down.
Its been going on a long time, whigs too.
One may be careful of the second empire video. Some say its only one in a whole range of exposé style reports, many of which portray different narratives which fell credible.
Francis Dennis.
Francis,
I understand you view but in saying:
“But are there really any labour/conservative or remain/leave divides amongst leasehold victims, you don’t think there are”?
We are just Retired Leaseholders who do not want to pay Excessive Costs that are un-necessary, wearing what we do.
Successive Governments have let the leaseholders down and continue to as they fail to prioritise Leasehold Reform. They may eventually be successful with House Leaseholds, Doubling Ground Rents and the Managing Contracts for Estate Management, but the unfortunate Retirement Developments continue to be cheated by Managing Agents who are moving more Operating Costs onto the Leaseholder as recent costs have turned up as Service Charges for:
1. Broadband Equipment (£115.20 a year) for Part Time Development Manager (PTDM) – we no longer have.
2. Broadband Line Rental and usage for the Broadband Equipment (£142.56 a year) for an office and PTDM – no longer required.
3. Office Tablet Contract (£100.80 a year) for use by the PTDM – we do not have.
Total £358.56 a year, no discussion or correspondence or communication of any kind, just showed up on the Service Charge Budget seen in the Expenses File Invoices.
Our Telephone Costs which were Line Rental £51.00 inc VAT – £612.00 a year then a charge per month for Management Calls say £60 per year a total of £672.00 a year now costing £1,121 a year (extra £450) for what?
One must be careful of the Second Empire Videos in case they are in fact correct.
Is it a case of May talking up big again to look strong and stable?
But I suggest if you take the ground rent you own the building, especially if you cite you are the guardian of the building and control its maintenance. The building sits on the land and the leaseholder only has the right to live there and own that right for x years. It defies logic to counter that argument.
My freeholder is Fairhold, one of the Consensus Group of companies. They tell me they are the freeholder and it is their decision to decide which maintenance is carried out on the building. They are, therefore, the building owner. The 1984 Building Act states the building owner is responsible for a dangerous building and it is their responsibility to make it safe.
What the government needs to do is examine a system that allows this situation to ever come into existence by the feudal laws that exist and fix that first.
Chris,
From my knowledge of Leasehold the Freeholder receives the Ground Rent (GR) from Landlord or their Agent, who sends out demands to the Leaseholder. We are in a Tripartite Lease, although there is a fourth company involved – we have:
1. Freeholder – Building Owner – Employs a Landlord to manage – provides 125 year Head Lease
2. Landlord – Has a Head Lease – 125 years – Employs Managing Agent
3. Landlords Agent – Arranges payment of GR by Leaseholders and arranges Arears and Insurance
4 Managing Agent – Manages the development – receives Management Fee & Service Charge
5. Leaseholder- Pays Service Charges to Landlord – and Ground Rent to Freeholders Agent
Leaseholder only has right to live at the flat for the years left on the lease – they are not responsible for a Development/Building that has been Refurbished with ACM and now classed as a Dangerous Building and you are correct The Building Act 2004 stated the Building Owner (paid the ground rent to) is responsible, so why do the Freeholders not accept this.
When a Landlord has a Head Lease (HL) of 125 years they can offer I believe a Lease Extension but only 26 years to match the HL. My knowledge of Fairhold, is it was set up by McCarthy & Stone to transfer the Freehold away from the Right of First Refusal, and uses Estates & Management as Agents with Firstport as Managing Agent. The Consensus Group of Companies, are part of The Tchenguiz Family Trust.
Government needs to examine all the Legislation which is all over the place into one Legislative System making it clear using the latest situations where Freeholders attempt to pass on Costs to the Poor Leaseholder and confirm the Freeholder is Ultimately Responsible.