On the Lords passing the McPartland/Smith/Bishop of St Albans amendment to the Fire Safety Bill. 1) Hurrah! 2) What happens now? The Bill goes back to the commons. But this time, unlike the govt stitch up last time, there will have to be a vote on the amendment. >
3) What does the amendment do? It is a short, neat, and quite brutal amend which would simply stop the costs of works under an order or notice under the 2005 fire safety order (amended by the Fire Safety Bill) from being passed on to leaseholders if in respect of build defects >
4) Does it dump all the costs on freeholders, as the minister suggested today? No, it is silent on who pays, except not the leaseholders. Could that mean freeholders have to pay? Yes, without something further from the Govt. Could freeholders go bust? Yes, just as leaseholders >
currently face bankruptcy in large numbers. 5) This is the reason the govt hate the amend - it highlights the whole mess, and makes them publicly choose who should face bankruptcy - freeholders or leaseholders - unless there is further govt intervention. >
6) Is the amendment *the answer*? No, not at all. It shouldn’t have to exist. I don’t even think it should be in the final Fire Safety Act. But until the Govt comes up with a viable answer to ‘who pays’, the possibility of legislation saying ‘not the leaseholders’ is needed…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
