Thread by @Fareita

So this is the response I have from our MP regarding #EndOurCladdingScandal #firesafetybill
Leaseholders should live in homes that are safe and have the right to expect that their home has been built to a high standard.

Developers should be putting right what is wrong with properties and I believe that they have a legal responsibility to do so.

Whilst many developers have acted responsibly in arranging surveys and completing remedial works, almost all have been slowed down by the pandemic, a lack of assessors, testing delays and the sheer scale of the task at hand.

Whilst many developers have acted responsibly in arranging surveys and completing remedial works,

almost all have been slowed down by the pandemic, a lack of assessors, testing delays and the sheer scale of the task at hand.

Where work has been agreed, there have then been further complications, or further issues identified which impact the safety and saleability of the property.

This has led to people being unable to sell properties and coupled with the financial implications of furlough or unemployment has placed too many leaseholders in an impossible situation.

It is wrong to suggest there is an easy solution to this problem. As a Government we have to find the right solution, not a sticking plaster for a complex problem or one with unintended consequences.

In the short term we need to do all we can make properties safe as quickly as possible.

For this reason, the Government have committed £5 billion towards the removal of unsafe cladding from buildings

and have announced plans to introduce a new developer levy to ensure that taxpayers do not foot the bill for remediation and that large property developers contribute to the national remediation effort.

It is easy to politicise issues such as this and it is always difficult to vote against a well-intentioned amendment.

Equally, it is difficult to vote against an amendment when the consequence of doing so gives the impression that you believe that leaseholders who have been sold properties that are not safe should somehow bear the financial responsibility for that.

However, I have a responsibility to ensure that legislation that I help to pass is coherent and the amendment, whilst well intended is unworkable and impractical.

This Bill is one of a series of Bills needed to tackle this issue. The Fire Safety Bill is a short, but critical Bill to clarify that fire risk assessments are updated to take account of external walls and flat entrance doors.

When the Bill came before the House of Commons for second reading, the Labour Party supported the bill on the basis of its limited scope and called upon the Government to introduce further detailed legislation to deal with the wider issues.

Indeed, the Government have committed to bringing forward the Building Safety Bill which will include a number of protections, including allowing the Government to limit the scope of what can be recovered from leaseholders.

In all legislation, amendments have to be "in scope" and can only amend what the bill is intending to introduce or change.

Because of this, the amendments would not have the desired practical effect because they do not fulfil the purpose of protecting leaseholders from all costs associated with building remediation.

The provisions would only apply to those costs uncovered through the Fire Risk Assessment and not, for example, defects discovered as a result of an incident or other works taking place.

More pertinently, the Fire Safety Bill, given its focused scope, does not have the necessary legislative detail needed to underpin the amendments in Regulations. It would require extensive drafting of primary legislation to make the amendments legally workable.

Critically, this would result in significantly delaying the implementation of the Fire Safety Bill and the crucial measures it puts forward to improve the fire safety regulatory system. Leaseholders do not need more delays.

As the Minister said in closing the debate; "the amendments do not reflect the complexity involved in apportioning liability for remedial defects.

The Government have announced how they will distribute costs, including from developers and industry, through our upcoming levy and tax.

A decision through this amendment to pass all these costs to the building owner would be overly simplistic and it could be counter-productive. It would be self-defeating if landlords, faced with remediation costs, simply walked away.

Many could do that. They could activate an insolvency procedure and just walk away. That is not about protecting freeholders, but about protecting leaseholders.

It is about their position, because if leaseholders are left behind as the owners walk away, they would be in the same position as they are now, with no certainty on how works would be paid for or when they will be done.

There is a real risk that this amendment could make the problem worse for leaseholders."
Thank you for taking the time to contact me.
Gareth Johnson MP

Would anyone like to add a comment to this response line by line please?😳@LiamSpender @NimrodTarquin @JollyRodger77 @EOCS_Official @ukcag @BristolCladding @LostInSW19 @WharfAction @CladdingVictim @jking157 @scantilyclad_ @LondonCAG @Sukhvin48630731 @CladdingJack @Deepa60650354

This is what ALL #leasholders would like but #ToryLies seems like landlords & freeholders are being protected.

I would say the sheer #ToryIncompetence and @RICSnews #ESW1 form was a total diabolical mess. Lenders, underwritters and conveyancers do not understand it. In less than 18 months a NEW ESW1 form was launched. Laughable details about building heights notwithstanding.

If the #automotiveindustry can take culpability and replace vehicles developers need to do the same. There are rafts of insurances & useless guarantees that actually do not protect #leasholders. @NHBC & @PG_Live totally worthless pieces of paper.

ANNNNNDDDDDD for ALL remediation costs the #ToryCorruption will be creaming off 20% in TAX why is this not exempt?

It would require work? GASP no way who would have thought that you actually need to do any work to fix this? @RobertJenrick @ChrisPincher @team_greenhalgh
the mind boggles that 11m #leasholders actually need to you to do some work 🤦‍♂️

@city_fitty @city_m3