Jump to content

CLADDING ISSUE - who pays?


jessica d

Recommended Posts

Hi all, 

 

A big topic for you today - if dangerous cladding is found on a block of apartments, who pays to fix it?

 

One of the properties I own is a flat in a block with 100+ leaseholders. I can't divulge too much information because it is an ongoing legal case, however we are currently pursuing several avenues of legal proceedings in order to determine whose responsibility it is to pay for the potential 7 figure cost of replacing all of the cladding on the building. 

 

Will it be the leaseholders, who are supposed to be responsible for maintenance and repair of the building, or the landlord who owns the building and is responsible for remedial action? 

 

Of course, when the building was completed less than 10 years ago, everything was approved to building standards at the time. It is because of the recent tragedy at Grenfell that everyone is suddenly realising that the standards are not good enough now. 

 

To be clear, nobody is disputing that the cladding needs to be replaced. At the moment, the leaseholders are paying six figure sums for 24 hour fire marshalls to guard the building so that it can stay operational for tenants. We are also being coerced into paying increased service charges (2-3x the normal amount) to pay for other remedial fire safety actions even though it hasn't yet been determined who is responsible. 

 

Although I can just about afford it with the rent (I am now essentially making £0 on that property) for some owner-occupiers or smaller portfolio leaseholders this increased service charge and potential astronomical charge to eventually do the cladding itself is going to wipe them out. 

 

As a leaseholder, I have a biased opinion but surely it shouldn't be us leaseholders, who each paid six figure sums to buy a product in good faith, who pays to fix something that isn't actually fit for purpose?? Please let me know your thoughts, I would be grateful for any advice. 

Link to post

Thank you for your reply Paul.

 

We are currently pursuing a buildings insurance claim since it is still (just about) valid under the 10 year mark, however it is not looking positive so far as there has not been any 'damage' to the building per se, which means our claim might not be valid.

 

If the insurance claim is not successful, our only hope is to win the case against the landlord otherwise I'm afraid it will set a precedent for other private landlords of buildings of this type. 

 

Any thoughts are much appreciated.

Link to post
  • 5 weeks later...

As a lawyer this is also very interesting to me.  I think more information is needed to really figure it out.  Based on the way you frame it, it seems like cladding is remedial action rather than repair/maintenance.  But the other question I would want to know is who put the cladding in place to begin with, and were there any assurances about the quality given then and if so by who?  As you say perhaps you cannot comment since these are ongoing proceedings...

Link to post
On 26/10/2017 at 12:31 PM, anthony-k said:

As a lawyer this is also very interesting to me.  I think more information is needed to really figure it out.  Based on the way you frame it, it seems like cladding is remedial action rather than repair/maintenance.  But the other question I would want to know is who put the cladding in place to begin with, and were there any assurances about the quality given then and if so by who?  As you say perhaps you cannot comment since these are ongoing proceedings...

 

Thanks for your reply Anthony. Unfortunately I am not a lawyer myself so I don't know all of the intricacies of the law and this case otherwise it would be helpful to get some outside advice.

 

A few dozen of us leaseholders have taken the step to hire an experienced solicitor on our behalf to fight this case for us and I have been following the updates although some of it is beyond my understanding without a background in law.

 

As for the builders, I haven't heard much about how chasing them is going - I think some of the other leaseholders have tried pursuing it but they have either gone bust/changed names etc. or have already 'proved' they are not responsible.

 

The trouble is that everyone followed (council/government?) regulations at the time so it's hard to put the blame on anyone really when the goal posts have moved, even though someone does have to pay eventually. 

 

The case is still ongoing, I will you updated. Any further advice or ideas would be much appreciated.

 

 

Link to post

I suppose the key point in this situation (and what your group is probably doing anyway) is that whatever action is taken there needs to be a focus on getting the problem fixed and mitigating total losses, and there probably shouldn't be any scope for coercion before remedial action is taken.  If the action needs taking now, the landlord is likely obliged to take that action: even if they have a right to recover from the leaseholder the fact that the leaseholder hasn't paid yet does not relieve the landlord of its obligation to fix the problem.  If there is any sort of short-term solution to the immediate risk that might save the cost of fire marshalls (e.g. getting the cladding off even if you aren't going to replace it straightaway) then that may be worth exploring from a cost-benefit point of view.

Link to post
  • 2 weeks later...
On 02/11/2017 at 4:41 PM, anthony-k said:

I suppose the key point in this situation (and what your group is probably doing anyway) is that whatever action is taken there needs to be a focus on getting the problem fixed and mitigating total losses, and there probably shouldn't be any scope for coercion before remedial action is taken.  If the action needs taking now, the landlord is likely obliged to take that action: even if they have a right to recover from the leaseholder the fact that the leaseholder hasn't paid yet does not relieve the landlord of its obligation to fix the problem.  If there is any sort of short-term solution to the immediate risk that might save the cost of fire marshalls (e.g. getting the cladding off even if you aren't going to replace it straightaway) then that may be worth exploring from a cost-benefit point of view.

 

Thank you Anthony, 

 

I have been reading further into this (many thanks for your link) and we're due to have a meeting with our solicitor/the landlord over the coming weeks. The second tribunal hearing is also in a few weeks. Regarding your point, the landlord has taken action regarding the fire safety by employing the fire marshals but has unfortunately decided to use the money from the leaseholders' sinking fund to do so, even though it hasn't yet been decided if we are responsible at all for the interim costs. We are doing our best to discuss and agree what can be done to save money in the short and long term but neither party wants to responsible for the costs.

 

To complicate matters, as I understand it, the cladding cannot be taken off, or if it is, this may increase the fire risk, as has happened to a council flat that I heard about in the area where the council's knee-jerk reaction was to take off the cladding but consequently found that they had made the situation worse. 

 

I'll keep you updated on how this progresses. I imagine it will set a precedent for future cases like ours.

Link to post
  • 1 month later...

Hi  jd1,

 

Is there any update on the case that you can share here? We have a similar situation at our development. The management company has employed fire marshals, but the cost is extortionate. And they haven’t provided any update on the cladding replacement. 

 

Thank you.

Link to post
  • 2 weeks later...
On 17/11/2017 at 10:39 PM, chrisaaaaa said:

Could the leaseholders take over the fire marshal duties? I cannot imagine the training will take too long. Similar to tenants doing weekly fire tests in a small block.

 

Good luck but I do not fancy your chances.

 

The fire marshals have to be on duty 24 hours a day, so I think it will be hard to get enough people to agree to do hours shifts even if it saves money because the costs are spread out among all leaseholders

Link to post
On 21/12/2017 at 12:07 PM, annav1 said:

Hi  jd1,

 

Is there any update on the case that you can share here? We have a similar situation at our development. The management company has employed fire marshals, but the cost is extortionate. And they haven’t provided any update on the cladding replacement. 

 

Thank you.

 

Hi annav1, for you and anyone else reading, here's a brief update:

 

We had our second tribunal which we think went fairly well, much helped by our solicitor which a few dozen of us banded together to contribute for. It will take a few more weeks before we hear the results, but we remain optimistic. The fact that we managed to work together like this may be our saving grace as we have heard stories about leaseholders in other developments who have not been able to pool resources to do something like this.

 

The first insurance claim failed, which we were told is normal since insurance companies don't tend to just pay out on the first request, instead we are obliged to appeal the decision with further evidence, which we have, so this route is still viable and is our best hope. The management company are helping us with this. There was a breakthrough with the discovery that the type/construction of the cladding may not actually have been to regulation/fit for use at the time of building, which bolsters our claim.

 

We are also in touch with our MP, the press, and others to spread the word and exchange information. Please feel free to share more about your situation, perhaps we can help! I'll keep this thread updated with future developments.

Link to post
  • 4 weeks later...

Hi Anna, 

New to the forum. I own a flat in a block that is part covered by defective cladding.

 

It is in a block of about 60 flats, which was built six years ago, and we learned in late December after the department of local government and communities had written to the block owners, that some of the cladding (we don't know how much) on three of nine floors is defective.  

 

The managing agents have given us very little information and the first we knew of what was going on was when fire marshals arrived before Christmas. 

 

We don't feel unsafe in the building at all, it is new and there are plenty of escape routes. 

 

We are very concerned that we are going to be hit with a bill and wonder four things -

 

1. how can we apply pressure on the managing agent to get this work done immediately and cancelling the fire marshals? At the moment, the profess to be concerned, but we are among 5,000 properties they manage and can't see how they would be making any individual a priority when it is not really their primary concern and their contract is with the freeholder, not the leaseholders. 

 

2. Do we have any rights to resist paying an anticipated fee? The managing agents have not told us what their plans are, what the costs will be and we are desperately concerned that they will just let this run and run because they feel they can legally. They have already indicated in a letter that they will be charging us. But for what we know not. 

 

3. Did you have lawyer for your tribunal? And when and where was it on? It would be useful to share the legal arguments that were used. 

 

4. Does anyone else know of a lawyer who can help? 

thanks

Edited by emerald
addition
Link to post

Hi Jessica D

I own a one bed apartment in a building of about 300 and have just been sent a bill for £12,000 for replacement of cladding. I cannit afford to pay this.

While searching for options, I came across your post and would like to know how you have proceeded on taking this up with landlord? I am thinking of contacting Citizen Advice to talk about my options but not sure what else to do? Do you mind sharing how you went about taking this case to court? As I won't be able to afford lawyer fees, I would also be interested to know how you got in touch with other leaseholders (I have rented my apartment out so don't really know how to go about this). 

If easier to talk on phone or by email, I can share my contact details with you.

Many thanks

Sadia

Link to post

Hello Jessica D,

 

Thanks for sharing your story on this forum. I own a one bedroom apartment and my situation is almost identical to yours.


Can I ask: what is the exact nature of the legal action you are undertaking? I appreciate that you might not want to go into detail. But I am thinking there must be many people across the country in the same situation and it would be useful if we all knew what the others were doing about it.

 

Are you arguing that the freeholder should pay? That seems to be a common idea I’ve heard. (See: https://www.lease-advice.org/faq/government-said-regarding-responsibility-paying-removal-cladding/)

 

What about pursuing the argument that the original BCB (Building Control Body) certificates must have been incorrect. Because they said that the cladding complied with the regulations but it didn’t. (The testing done post-Grenfell demonstrates this.) Therefore the inspectors are liable.

 

Thanks,

 

Masood
 

Link to post
  • 1 month later...

 

On 1/3/2018 at 4:08 PM, jessica d said:

 

Hi annav1, for you and anyone else reading, here's a brief update:

 

We had our second tribunal which we think went fairly well, much helped by our solicitor which a few dozen of us banded together to contribute for. It will take a few more weeks before we hear the results, but we remain optimistic. The fact that we managed to work together like this may be our saving grace as we have heard stories about leaseholders in other developments who have not been able to pool resources to do something like this.

 

The first insurance claim failed, which we were told is normal since insurance companies don't tend to just pay out on the first request, instead we are obliged to appeal the decision with further evidence, which we have, so this route is still viable and is our best hope. The management company are helping us with this. There was a breakthrough with the discovery that the type/construction of the cladding may not actually have been to regulation/fit for use at the time of building, which bolsters our claim.

 

We are also in touch with our MP, the press, and others to spread the word and exchange information. Please feel free to share more about your situation, perhaps we can help! I'll keep this thread updated with future developments.

 

Hi Jessica, have you got any updates since your post in Jan? 

 

I have only just seen this thread and experiencing very similar issues in Manchester.

 

Thanks 

Link to post

I see a lot of these case in the press, and so far the couple that have been to the FTT have gone as expected, victory for the freeholders.

 

I have to wonder what will happen should a freeholder loose at the FTT and the inevitable appeals, is there an entity who can be compelled to pay, be it ltd company or offshore trust? 

 

Could it be a hollow victory?

 

Link to post
  • 2 weeks later...
On 25/01/2018 at 6:06 PM, emerald said:

Hi Anna, 

New to the forum. I own a flat in a block that is part covered by defective cladding.

 

It is in a block of about 60 flats, which was built six years ago, and we learned in late December after the department of local government and communities had written to the block owners, that some of the cladding (we don't know how much) on three of nine floors is defective.  

 

The managing agents have given us very little information and the first we knew of what was going on was when fire marshals arrived before Christmas. 

 

We don't feel unsafe in the building at all, it is new and there are plenty of escape routes. 

 

We are very concerned that we are going to be hit with a bill and wonder four things -

 

1. how can we apply pressure on the managing agent to get this work done immediately and cancelling the fire marshals? At the moment, the profess to be concerned, but we are among 5,000 properties they manage and can't see how they would be making any individual a priority when it is not really their primary concern and their contract is with the freeholder, not the leaseholders. 

 

2. Do we have any rights to resist paying an anticipated fee? The managing agents have not told us what their plans are, what the costs will be and we are desperately concerned that they will just let this run and run because they feel they can legally. They have already indicated in a letter that they will be charging us. But for what we know not. 

 

3. Did you have lawyer for your tribunal? And when and where was it on? It would be useful to share the legal arguments that were used. 

 

4. Does anyone else know of a lawyer who can help? 

thanks

 

On 29/01/2018 at 10:12 PM, sadia a said:

Hi Jessica D

I own a one bed apartment in a building of about 300 and have just been sent a bill for £12,000 for replacement of cladding. I cannit afford to pay this.

While searching for options, I came across your post and would like to know how you have proceeded on taking this up with landlord? I am thinking of contacting Citizen Advice to talk about my options but not sure what else to do? Do you mind sharing how you went about taking this case to court? As I won't be able to afford lawyer fees, I would also be interested to know how you got in touch with other leaseholders (I have rented my apartment out so don't really know how to go about this). 

If easier to talk on phone or by email, I can share my contact details with you.

Many thanks

Sadia

 

On 31/01/2018 at 5:11 PM, masood i said:

Hello Jessica D,

 

Thanks for sharing your story on this forum. I own a one bedroom apartment and my situation is almost identical to yours.


Can I ask: what is the exact nature of the legal action you are undertaking? I appreciate that you might not want to go into detail. But I am thinking there must be many people across the country in the same situation and it would be useful if we all knew what the others were doing about it.

 

Are you arguing that the freeholder should pay? That seems to be a common idea I’ve heard. (See: https://www.lease-advice.org/faq/government-said-regarding-responsibility-paying-removal-cladding/)

 

What about pursuing the argument that the original BCB (Building Control Body) certificates must have been incorrect. Because they said that the cladding complied with the regulations but it didn’t. (The testing done post-Grenfell demonstrates this.) Therefore the inspectors are liable.

 

Thanks,

 

Masood
 

 

On 21/03/2018 at 10:55 AM, jonty casson said:

 

 

Hi Jessica, have you got any updates since your post in Jan? 

 

I have only just seen this thread and experiencing very similar issues in Manchester.

 

Thanks 

 

On 21/03/2018 at 9:47 PM, chrisaaaaa said:

I see a lot of these case in the press, and so far the couple that have been to the FTT have gone as expected, victory for the freeholders.

 

I have to wonder what will happen should a freeholder loose at the FTT and the inevitable appeals, is there an entity who can be compelled to pay, be it ltd company or offshore trust? 

 

Could it be a hollow victory?

 

 

Hi All,

Apologies for the lack of updates, I didn't know that there had been more replies to this thread until I received a notification that I was directly quoted. 

 

Thank you for sharing your stories, it would be good to turn this thread into a source of information so that we can help each other.

 

Yes there have been a couple of updates since January, the main development being that we lost the First Tier Tribunal that determined who would be responsible for the fire warden costs. For details, see this link https://www.lease-advice.org/news-item/use-wardens-recovery-costs-leaseholders-important-decision-first-tier-tribunal-property-chamber/?dm_i=OUE%2C5FPLW%2CRHL8PJ%2CL1S8H%2C1

 

Until we received the result of the tribunal, we had been advised by our group's solicitor to refuse to pay anything over and above the normal service charges. Please consult your own legal advice before doing this, but we were advised to not be intimidated by the new higher invoices and to continue paying what we had been doing (and when it went into a new financial year, to calculate according to the statements the cost of service charges minus anything to do with fire marshals/systems etc.)

 

It seems that this was okay until the FTT ruling, so in case this helps anyone (and again, please seek professional advise before doing this) you may be able to refuse to pay anything until your Landlord brings their case to FTT.

 

Anyway, so even though we put forward a united effort with good legal representation, we lost and now we all have to pay approx £100 more per month for the fire wardens. I apologise that I honestly don't know down to which law/clause/detail(s) that we fought the case on, but it might not help you anyway as every lease is different, so our case may or may not necessarily set a precedent for future cases. 

The good news is that we have now successfully formed a Leaseholders Association so that we can get the Right to Manage and deal with the situation more directly and with more power. If the management company are uncooperative (to be fair, they've been okay-ish in our case - even though they are on the Landlord's side, they have tried to get all of the relevant information/expertise to deal with the situation quickly) we can threaten to go with another company etc. which will help our cause greatly. 

Most of us are still refusing to pay for the fire system that the Landlord/managing agent wants to put in place as an interim measure before replacing the cladding. As I mentioned before, replacing the cladding can be a complicated project which can take a fairly long time to get the correct experts etc. in to do properly. The fire system is supposed to reduce the overall costs of the fire safety measures as it's supposed to pay for itself over using marshals over the course of 12-18 months, but a lot of leaseholders cannot afford to pay this extra amount on top of the marshal costs already, and most people are hoping that works on cladding can start within that time frame.

 

It's quite an unfortunate situation, but we are making small progresses. I believe our second attempt at the insurance claim is still ongoing, and we have one or two clauses we can legally pick at to potentially win. 

 

The important thing for everyone else is that every lease is different, so you must try to band together to get legal representation to win your own cases. Knock on doors, send out letters, get your management company to contact all the landlords... do whatever you can to get all the owners together and on the same page, and try to agree on and chip in for a legal expert to help you.

Please keep this thread updated, if it remains popular it might get sent out in the Property Hub email and gain some more attention. Thanks!

Link to post
  • 1 month later...

Hi all,

 

I’ve been reading this thread with much interest, due to me too being in this unfortunate situation.

 

A little background on my circumstance;

 

-          I’m a resident within a small block of apartments, less than 40 dwellings, less than 10 years old.

-          We have a RTM company (Right To Manage) where I’m on the board

-          Approx 25% of our building is covered in cladding, which last year was tested and concluded to be category 3, i.e. inflammable

-          Our local Fire & Rescue near the beginning of 2018 lodged an enforcement notice specifying that we remove and replace the cladding, OR implement mitigating measures to include; update evacuation procedure, waking watch and extend the fire alarm.

 

Since receiving the enforcement notice, we have worked on the following;

 

-          Applied a Section 20 process for the fire alarm extension and separately the cladding.  This was voted on by all residents who are members of the RTM.  You need an active Section 20 process for major works in order to charge each resident above the statutory £250 threshold, otherwise a resident can refuse paying anything over £250.  We put this in place so it sat there ready, if ever we needed to take swift action and get the cladding removed and replaced.  Avoids delays down the line.

-          We’ve lodged a claim with our insurer and are pursuing this with legal representation.  Luckily we have proved that the cladding AND the construction of the cladding/insulation/fire breaks did not conform to building regs at the time, where the insurer was also the official building control who signed off the building.  The insurer as expected isn’t accepting our claim due to us ‘not having followed their process’ so we have escalated to the ombudsman.

-          We’re looking to lodge a claim against the developer but are seeking preliminary guidance.

 

Events have further unfolded over the past couple of weeks where;

 

-          The Council, who previously advised were delegating responsibilities to Fire & Rescue, have conducted an assessment and will shortly categorise our building as a Hazard 1-3 – I don’t know what to expect from their report.

-          Fire & Rescue, out of the blue, said they were to conduct an onsite audit and will issue an additional enforcement notice specifying impositions, to include but not limited to a 24/7 waking watch.  We proposed some residents would get trained and conduct the waking watch to avoid costs, but Fire & Rescue refuted that as an option.

 

Until two weeks ago, our strategy was to negotiate the mitigating measures with Fire & Rescue, where they would be comfortable us facilitating our own waking watch at no cost.  This would avoid pressure in us touching the cladding, and give us time to pursue the insurer and developer.

 

Regretfully, I know we’re liable to pay for everything to do with this fiasco, as our lease outlines as such.  I did think to liquidate the RTM company and say to the Council/Fire & Rescue that we don’t have the money, but then the landlord can get involved and implement a very expensive waking watch which we’d have no decision on, then the landlord recharge those costs back to us, likely more expensive compared to us handling ourselves via our RTM, where we can decide on suppliers/tenders/costs etc.  If you refuse to repay the landlord, they could then put an order on your home.

 

Having our RTM is a saving grace, because as least we can decide who tenders for the cladding works and decide who to engage.

 

Unfortunately our position has changed, where we’ll likely need to pay for a waking watch which will force us to remove and replace the cladding, and in fact the insulation which is also inflammable.  We will still resume our claims but in my experience it’s always difficult claiming already expensed costs, and removing the cladding could compromise our claim.

 

All I’m hoping for, and by no means is it an ideal position, but if we found 2-3 chaps to cover the 24/7 waking watch which cost each resident £100 a month, that satisfied Fire & Rescue in terms of safety, then we wouldn’t need to touch the cladding and would enable us to resume pressure on the insurer/developer until they admitted liability and sorted the cladding.  Might cost me £1,200 over a year, but I wouldn’t have to risk paying £15-£20k on cladding where I’d have very little chance in getting back.

 

I have to say I’m not a lawyer or an expert in property, have just picked stuff up along the way, so hope the above helps.  If you have any questions let me know

Link to post

Hi John,

 

A few points;

 

If you have proof the bldg was non compliant when it was complete you have a lot more chance than most I have seen, under 10 years, are you covered by NHBC warranty?

 

For leaseholders who cannot/will not pay for works with a valid s.20, the £250 cap on costs is gone now, all they can claim is the difference between what it should have cost and what it did cost (ie actual loss), so long as you do the job properly you will not have an issue.

 

For the waking watch, find out what training the professional security guards approved by the fire service have had, I would be surprised if it lasted more than a couple of hours, some of your residents could do the course.

 

For those LH with mortgages, they do not need to pay now, if they refuse to pay and admit the liability the mortgage company usually step in to avoid repossession, don't trust me on that, get advice.

 

It is a young block so hopefully you will have a limited number of pensioners who own and have limited means who will sadly end up in bed and breakfast.

 

Good luck.

Link to post

Hi,

 

Under the terms of the insurer, we have a case, but they're telling us we need to present a technical report on the current materials and construction to technically prove our case.  This would cost us approx £10k, when in fact one of the insurers inspectors should visit and conduct this themselves.  They're adding this obstacle hoping we'll go away.  Of course if our claim was honoured this would set a precedent and would cost the insurer far more than just our relatively small claim, hence their reluctance.

 

Understood re the £250 cap, I'll need to investigate further.

 

Our local Fire Rescue have already told us we cannot conduct the Waking Watch ourselves, we need to engage an independent party.

 

Regards

Link to post

Hi all, here's a brief update since this topic has been featured in the Property Hub email.

We have had success with the insurance claim due to a professional investigation we had carried out which found another separate issue with the building that we can base the claim on. It is quite a serious issue so I will provide more details when everything has been approved. So if your insurance is still valid, it may be worth looking into trying to find another major defect with the building in order to claim the insurance to fix the cladding as well.

We are still paying for the waking watch, although it has been floated that it would be more economical to train concierges (our management company does provide this service to luxury apartments in other parts of the country) for a fire safety course/qualification. We figure since we're paying for 24hr presence anyway, they might as well help with greeting people, collecting mail etc. which would bring up the prestige of the building.

During all the liaising with the Landlord/solicitors/management company, having RTM/Leaseholders Association has been essential to make decisions and get joint legal representation etc. If/when we are successful with the insurance claim, we may even legally pursue certain parties for the costs incurred and/or compensation.

The silver lining in all this is that even though the waking watch etc. may cost each leaseholder £4-5k in the short term by the time everything is sorted out, ideally in the next few years when the building works have been paid for by the insurance monies, we may be anything between £30-50k better off in capital gains from owning one of the safest buildings in the city with a beautiful new façade and maybe even some compensation on top. So it might have all been a blessing in disguise.

Lastly, some positive news coverage:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/may/16/theresa-may-pledges-400m-to-remove-grenfell-style-cladding

There is no funding for privately owned blocks, but May’s spokeswoman said No 10 thought the cost should be met by the landlords: “This is money for social housing. We expect private building owners to take responsibility for removing and replacing and to not pass the cost on to leaseholders.”

 

Link to post
  • 1 month later...
  • 3 months later...

Hi John, apologies for the delayed reply, I've only just seen your post. I'm not able to disclose specifics in case for some reason it jeopardises the case but if it helps at all, we had a third party consultancy inspect the building and they found that there was another fire-related aspect that was not up to regulation at the time of build and so it should not have signed off. 

To further update the story - at first the insurers tried to deny the entire claim, but then capitulated and admitted that they will cover some of the cladding (there are a few different types involved with our building) but by arguing that the entire cladding is one SYSTEM and not separable into parts, we eventually got them to cover the entirety of the cladding. 

Now they have stated they will cover the cost of replacing the entire cladding system (up to a certain build cost, given that each leaseholder pay the excess) but in the months they have taken to make the decision we have been paying for fire marshals and in the future we will pursue them or another method to recoup these costs if possible. 

Best of luck with yours and everyone else's cladding situations!

Link to post

Hi,

 

I'm not sure if this is your development, but the New Capital Quay in Greenwich finally has an answer to their cladding issue after a long legal back and forth. Good news for the owners there after seeing their value plummet.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-44779790

Personal Blog: https://abcdad.co.uk
Property Spreadsheet and Deal Analyser: https://abcdad.co.uk/property-spreadsheet
Looking to read some Property books? https://abcdad.co.uk/books/property-books
Follow on Instagram: @abc.dad

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...