Nothing new in this long thread (13), recap on who should pay for fire remediation. Remember: gvt has said from early on leaseholders should not pay. 1/13
BUT the statement from @team-_greenhalgh before @mhclg select committee yesterday is not unexpected. There’s been a drift from this towards being ‘affordable’ over recent months 2/13
Holding gvt to account IN LAW: 1. Judicial review of gvt decisions @SkylineCentral1 tried to judicially review limited scope of recent BSF but that failed. 2. Clear regulatory failure that breaches Art ‘right to life’. Difficult to pursue legally 5/13
Leaseholder liability 4 remediation costs? IN LAW: depends on wording of leases. Under ‘most’ – but not necessarily all - there will be some way to recover costs: see BUT DO CHECK THE WORDING OF THE LEASE 7/13
IN LAW: Leaseholder liability 4 WW costs? May be arguable it is not reasonable to incur these costs for long period if alarm could be used. But will also depend on what FRS is requiring (and obv there are many who argue they impose unreasonable WW requirements). 8/13
IN LAW: warranty providers if still within time (usually 10 years) but many wriggling out and shockingly @NHBC only pay up if they also did building control (paying up when the marked the work incorrectly). A disgrace, but that’s the position. 9/13
MORALLY WHO SHOULD PAY? Those responsible for creating the mess. Not the leaseholders. 10/13
PRACTICALLY? Target developers when responsible and making big profits, still getting gvt help with new builds. Gvt has to help with this. 11/13
PRACTICALLY? And, of course, the only other possibility is for gvt to enable action now. Not good enough of @team-_greenhalgh only to be able to say routes to payment are at early stage of investigation. Nearly 3.5 years on. 12/13
AND THIS THREAD IGNORES PROBLEMS OF EWS1 stalling the property market even with ‘safe’ buildings. 13/13 - phew!
You can follow @suejbright.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: