Thread by @nearlylegal

Some thoughts ahead of the debate on building safety and the costs of remediation that Labour intend to force on Monday, and on the cladding/fire safety fiasco in general. This may be a lengthy thread (oh hell it is)… 1/23

It surely cannot be questioned that the absolute priority is that these buildings are fixed. Maybe hundreds of thousands of leaseholders (or their tenants) are living in unsafe, unmortgageable, unsellable properties. It is destroying lives and the property market.. 2/23

et alone the risk of another disaster and loss of life. So, the question is, has to be, how best to achieve the fixing of these buildings. As things currently stand, outside of the limits of the £1.6 billion in ACM and Non ACM remediation grants provided by the Govt, … 3/23

the only answer is that leaseholders pay - they pay for waking watches, or new alarm systems (outside a small Govt grant) but above all, they pay for the costs of rectifying the build defects. This will not work. For the simple reason… 4/23

that this will cost far more than leaseholders can pay. And if people, even a % of people can’t pay, then the works won’t happen. There is no such thing as 70% remediated. By the way, the Govt £1.6 billion? The low end estimate of costs of works is £18 billion… 5/23

So, we can write off ‘charge it to the leaseholders’ as at the very best a recipe for endless delay, & at worst a means of ensuring that most buildings are never remediated. After all, forfeiture, repossession & bankruptcy won’t get the works done, or get the freeholder.. 6/23

any money on flats that remain unsaleable. What are the alternatives? Well, in some instances - where the building is under 6 years from completion (or major refurbishment) leaseholders may have a claim against the builder/developer or freeholder for the cost of… 7/23

putting things right. But a) this is only a few of the buildings. Many have had these problems hidden behind exterior cladding for many years and are out of time. And b) Although this is litigating build defects is large part of what I do for a living, and it… 8/23

puts food on my table and wine in my glass, litigation should be *the last resort* in solving problems. It is slow, costly and risky. And the law on build defects is, frankly, dreadful and not fit for purpose. So no, litigation is not *the* answer.… 9/23

(though hey, if you need to, I’m very good at it.) What options does that leave - remembering the main aim of *fixing the damn buildings*? The Govt appears to be about to propose funding in the way of up front payments to freeholders/owners secured as a long term loan… 10/23

probably at low interest, the payments on which would be recovered from… the leaseholders of course. Now, it isn’t clear how this would work, but my guess is that it would be a long term debt against the flat, not the leaseholder. So, this would depress, if not destroy… 11/23

the market in such encumbered flats - any buyer would want to set the long term debt against the purchase price. A lot of flats would immediately be put into negative equity, and the market in leasehold flats would remain in crisis. That is even before we get on to … 12/23

the destruction of the leasehold flat market and with it the investments, hopes and reasonable expectations of leaseholders. People will e unable to sell, unable to move, without taking a huge hit, because who would buy without discounting… 13/23

the outstanding loan payments against the value of the flat - assuming that it isn’t deducted as a charge from what the seller receives. Why should the innocent have to bear the burden, when that will ruin not just them bet the market? 14/23

What does that leave? Well, who built these dangerous, defective buildings? Who, for eg, profited from Govt funding for ‘help to buy’ at up to some £23 billion by 2023 (there is reasonable evidence that new build prices increased by almost exactly the amount of the.. 15/23

help to buy funding). Why shouldn’t the polluter pay? Those who have profited hugely from Govt subsidised loans and those who have ingored or failed to consider the lies in the 16/23

marketing of the cladding and insulation manufacturers, failing to do anything but fling building up as quickly & cheaply as possible, are the ones who are so far walking away from any responsibility under cover of the (inadequate) law, with profits in billions a year… 17/23

The govt is apparently preparing to propose a small levy on developers to raise £2 billion over 10 years. Given the figures we are talking about - £18 billion minimum to remedy issues - this is a mere token. The simple principle has to be polluter pays. If developers… 18/23

can’t build safe buildings, then they must pay, one way or another, for the damage that they have done, to people’s safety, to their security, their futures, and to the housing market and the economy as a whole. The only realistic… 19/23

answer is that in the end, the developers pay. It may well take up front govt funding for remediation, because the works need doing *now*, but impose a levy on developers, repurpose ‘help to buy funding’ and seek repayment from the increase in developer’s profits… 20/23

that roughly matched the ‘help to buy’ loans by inflating new build prices (which are to be repaid by the private buyers, of course), or stick a tax on developments over a certain value - whatever mechanism, and there are many available, the polluter should repay…. 21/23

But, and this is key, there needs to be up front funding, that only the Govt can provide now. Make the funds available, and make clear how these funds will be repaid - by levies and/or taxes on developers - is in the end the only answer that leaves the blameless… 22/23

easeholders with a future and free of blight that was not their fault, and keeps that sector of the housing market intact and functioning. There is, realistically, no other practical or moral option. Unless you are a developer. 23/23

So many typos and pasting errors, I wince. Sighs. But I think the point is there.