Homeowners in England and Wales will soon get 15 years to legally challenge ‘shoddy’ building work in light of the cladding crisis, the housing secretary Robert Jenrick confirmed yesterday.
The Building Safety Bill would increase the current six-year period in which legal action can be brought against developers.
The change would “put new cards in the hands of the leaseholders”, Jenrick said.
However, a legal expert has described the announcement as a political move designed to “simply kicking the can down the road”.
Jonathan Frankel, litigation partner at Cavendish Legal Group, said: “Extending the limitation period from six years to 15 years will be beneficial for some leaseholders, particularly those who feel they are able to challenge the landlord.
“However, it’s not necessarily the case that it would ‘put new cards in the hands of the leaseholder’ as Robert Jenrick says. It simply delays the period of limitation to allow them to bring legal challenges.
“As such, issues of representation and funding for any legal action and subsequent repairs will continue to be the major obstacle for most leaseholders.
“Politically this feels like the government is simply kicking the can down the road which will actually prolong the pain for leaseholders further. In my view there is no benefit to extending the limitation period without helping leaseholders fund potential legal actions. That’s the change we want to see.”
But Mark Hayward, chief policy adviser at Propertymark, described the publication of the Building Safety Bill as a “a significant step in ensuring that everyone feels safe in their own homes”.
He commented: “Following the disaster of the 2017 Grenfell fire, it is essential that government continues to take action following the Fire Safety Act which received Royal Assent in April and stamps out lax building standards”
“The introduction of a Building Safety Regulator is a welcome policy from this legislation and will be essential in holding house builders and developers to account.
“Propertymark will work closely with MHCLG to understand more about the regulators remit and how it will work. We hope that the announcements will drive the change needed across the industry to enable the construction of high-quality and safe homes.”
New Bill ‘will ensure high standards of safety for people’s homes’
What about the architects who specified material and finishes or the building control officers who signed everything off as safe? Both have professional indemnity insurances and in my book are as culpable as the builders who constructed or amended buildings according to a drawing which was then signed off by someone acting on behalf of a local authority.
Developers didn’t act alone and weren’t the only ones with a responsibility to the owners and occupiers of the toxic homes they’ve built. Lenders, valuers and conveyancers all have a duty of care to the people who bought these properties so it seems somehow wrong that there’s a whole load of jazz hands shooing away any responsibility or involvement in a process that’s meant many hundreds of thousands of homes are worthless and unsaleable.
For sure there is a primary responsibility for those who built the properties and took the profit but to me this is a wholesale system failure.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Indeed it is a national scandal that leaseholders have been left with paying for all the incompetent construction from 40 years ago to present day. Govt should pay for all construction defect remediation and then recover from those who caused the defects. PI insurance should definitely be claimed on. The principle of the polluter pays should be the overriding one. If this isn’t done there will be millions of leaseholders bankrupted. These worthless flats until fully remediated could cause a credit crunch. Banks would have millions of worthless flats with no chance of recovering mortgage debt from owners. Bankruptcy is the most convenient way for flat owners to avoid paying remediation costs etc (Is a leaseholder ever an owner!?) Surely they are just a tenant with a long term tenancy agreement!?
Since when do tenants have to pay for remediation costs of the building they are renting!?
As one of these flat owners I have been planning for bankruptcy for a while now. If I have to I will go bankrupt and will probably be discharged in a year. My lender will be somewhat out of pocket to the tune of about £1.2 million!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
In a lot of cases the mortgage lenders own 95% of the problem, the mortgagor owning 5% of the value approved by the lender yet all of the burden for remedy is being posted to the borrower.
…We lent you a heap of money, the valuer said that was fine, they missed the place might burn you in your bed but hey ho, get it put right would you?
There are so many factors to consider it just seems wholly unreasonable that the people least able to remedy the situation are also the ones least able to challenge the failure of a process that has turned out to be stacked against them
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
How many of the people affected had a full structural and not just a valuation. If it was just valuation I would not expect it to be picked up.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I am sincerely sorry to hear of your issues.
But as Robert quite correctly says many people have a case to answer. He is correct in saying that architects, building control and indeed the manufacturers of the products all of whom will be insured are implicated.
The people who are not in any way responsible are the taxpayers. Why should the whole country pay for something that happened as long sometimes as 40 years ago for instance and they had no part in.
Me a taxpayer? Why should I be paying?
Millions of other taxpayers. Why should they be paying?
People who are tenants who work and have never even onwed a flat? Why should they be paying?
Many of the companies who built these blocks are no longer in business so the govt cannot reclaim the money from them.
Even with those who are still in business it would take many years of litigation huge expense to the taxpayer and with any court case there is not guarantee of winning anyway.
If you really think it as easy as you imply get a solicitor to sue the builder yourself.
I think those affected should start a class action against people like the architencts, suppliers of the products etc and not wait for someone else to do it.
Articlauerly with peoopkle who bought buy to let they made a business decision.
The govt surely cannot be expected to bale out everyone who has a business that for any reason gets in to difficulty. That is the mentality of entiltlement where everything hat goes wrong has to be dealt with by the taxpayer.
I run my own business and have for years. I have never expected th govt to bale me out.
If a person who owns leashold is just long term tenant as you suggest they they should not be entitled to any capital gain if proeprty vaues go up – any increase in value by your argument should be paid to the freeholder.
You cannot have a bit of cake and eat it. If you take the gain you also take the pain.
All businesses have risk
I own my own house the only person responsibe for it is me.
The thing to do is galvanisde the people in the block where you own flats to get the EWS1 form done and get the remedial works done.
Or galvainse them to sure the the architencts, suppliers of the products etc.
You say you may go into voluntary bankrpucy and be discharged in a year. Do that then if it is of no import to you.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Actually the Govt is responsible. They facilitated the construction regulations. Doesn’t matter what the colour of the Govt was at the time. Govts have responsibilities for things they did. Even decades later. Poor construction regulations led to the current situation. Ultimately the taxpayer has to pay. It is a whole lot cheaper than potentially causing a run on the banks. Seriously with the mind numbing remediation costs bankruptcy is the only solution for many. It could collapse the UK property market. 2 million defaulted mortgages at say £200000 a piece. Doesn’t bear thinking about. £50 billion is the project remediation costs of all flat block construction defects. That is very cheap to save the UK property market. Govt is deluding itself if it imagines leaseholders will be able or even willing to meet the full remediation costs. The cladding issue is a minor detail. It is all the construction defects that have been revealed by surveys. As far as I am aware even a full building survey would not have revealed defective or missing fire barriers. Surveyors are not allowed to chop bits of a flat block away to reveal possible defects. It is Councils and ultimately Govt that signed these buildings off. Yes it would take decades to recover from those responsible; so what!? If the flat market is destroyed as it currently is there would be enormous ramifications which don’t bear thinking about. Flats are where Govt intends to house the vast majority of people. Believe me I wouldn’t buy or invest in a flat if you paid me……………at least not until all defective flats have been remediated and even then I still probably wouldn’t. Govt needs to restore confidence to the value of flats as a major form of tenure. Money and new regulations are the only ways to achieve that. House owners need flat owners to have value in their flats. They tend to be the ones that move onto a house. Leaseholders simply aren’t responsible for the current cladding debacle. They will NOT pay whatever the Govt believes. Govt imperative must be to restore value to the flat market. If it doesn’t it could face being voted out next GE. So a bit of ‘pork barrel’ politics is definitely needed. As for my situation yes I’d lose about £160000. A drop in the ocean compared to the costs my lender will incur which I of course won’t be paying. Bankruptcy is a perfect solution for my particular circumstances. Few people realise that lenders have 12 years to recover mortgage debts before they become Statute Barred from recovery. Bankruptcy ends that situation. Yes a bummer as being a discharged bankrupt affects you for 6 years. Big deal. I’ve effectively been bankrupt since 2009 anyway so I won’t notice much difference!!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Pail I honestly feel sorry for you. It m,ust be a difficult situation to be in. I do not however agree with your premise.
Allow me to answer your points.You say they govt is responsible for what it did . It did not pass this legislation govt was not in power when this legislation was passed. No one is responsible for something that they had no part of decades after the event.
I am a taxpayer. I do not see why I have to pay.
I am not responsible for decisions made by others when they invest in a business. If I have problems in my own business I do not expect the govt to bale me out.
There will not be a run on the banks – investors are already buying these flats with a view to a long term investment.
It will not collapse the property market. These flats are already unsaleable and the market has far from collapsed. What has happened in that demand generally for flats has fallen and that for houses has increased. I work in the business myself and I know that developers are now looking to build houses rather than apartments now as they see them as far more saleable.
On the other had if prices fell in the market many first time buyers who are now priced out of the market would be able to purchase rather than rent for ever.
A full,survey would almost certainly have raised at least some of the fire issues. I have never bought property without a full survey personally as I know a valuation is all but worthless.
There is no guarantee that trying to sue any builder architect etc would be successful and would just chuck more money from taxpayers down the drain. Many of those involved not be around now anyway such is the nature of business.
The flat market is not currently destroyed. As I say I work in the business and people are still buying flats albeit at a lesser art than previously but by no means is it in any way totally destroyed. I have just spoken this week to an agents for a developer in Bristol who sold 46 out kof 48 apartments built by Ikea on launch weekend.
Flats ar still selling but not those that have issues and or no EWS1 form. Buyers know that flats being built today will; be absolutely squeaky clean.
I am with you I would not invest in an apartment but many people still are. I would not buy many things that other do buy, such as a season ticket at Arsenal for instance!
I take your point about people moving upwards on the property ladder and that may stall. It has shown no signs of doing so as yet however. Indeed many flat owners are renting them out and so will not sell to move up the ladder which used to be the old way.
It is not the govt duty to restore confidence in flats. Let the market dictate. The world has just been through he biggest problem since WW2. Billions has been spent supporting business. The govt does not have free money tree.
Leaseholders are responsible for the cladding issue they bought the property they own the bricks and mortar.
You say they will NOT pay – that is up to them if they do not they will lose the property.
I am well aware f the law with regard to bankruptcy.
You say being bankrupt will not affect you so do not worry about it is my best advice.
Your lender probably will have insurance a lot of lenders took out insurance after the 2008 crash.
As I say i feel for anyone in this spot but I do not see how it is my responsibility as a taxpayer or of the people who work for me.
As I said I think folk need to organise a class action case. Doing something active focuses the mind and makes people feel far more positive.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Govt liability doesn’t change just because a different political party forms rhe Govt.
The Govt today is responsible for the Windrush debacle
Govt of the day was responsible for the Regulatory Fire Reform order which has caused the current chaos.
That was under a Labour Givt.
Govts are still liable for previous Govt incompetence.
Leaseholders will not pay remediation costs.
What happens to those flats who knows?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Perhaps I was veing abit glib about bankruptcy.
I still lose £160000 plus any CG.
But still leaseholders can’t afford remediation costs.
Cladding cpsts are minor.
It is all the other cpnstruction defectsthat have been revealed.
As you sugfest only flats fulky covered by an EWS1 form will have value.
However the vast majority offlats with defects aren’t covered.
It is a nightmare that only the taxpayer can fix.
Developers and builders cannot be allowed. Toget away with it
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Thanks for sharing
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register