Thread by @LiamSpender

1/15 A visceral image of fire at ACM-clad New Providence Wharf in London.

I hope everyone is alright and that the damage to people's homes is not extensive.

Some thoughts below on the govt's inevitable spin in response to this fire.

#NotJustCladding #EndOurCladdingScandal

https://twitter.com/rachaelvenables/status/1390590049071386627

2/15 First and foremost, this is a failure of government. It has had nearly 4 years to identify and remedy buildings at risk.

It has failed to do so, instead preferring to push the problem onto anyone except itself and then standing idly by whilst others did the same.

3/15 Freeholders do not do the right thing. The freehold to this building is still owned by the developer, Ballymore.

Ballymore has not offered any meaningful contribution to the vast costs of removing cladding, instead dumping the costs on the taxpayer and its leaseholders

4/15 Leaseholders (before today at least) had no legal remedies because this building is more than 6 years old.

Ballymore (and perhaps others) may now be looking at negligence claims for damage caused by this fire.

It shouldn't take a fire to get legal redress.

5/15 Developers won't take any steps to improve the standards of construction or fire safety unless they are made to account for the consequences of their choices.

That means reforming the law to extend limitation periods, abolishing bars to recovering economic loss...

6/15 ... implying transmissible terms and duties as to fitness for habitation and compliance with Building Regulations, requiring builders to carry proper insurance and improving the quality of building warranties, perhaps even putting them on a statutory basis to ease claims.

7/15 None of these legal reforms are currently on the table, although the gov't hinted it may make some of them.

It also means taxing developers to cover the costs of cleaning up their mess. Currently the gov't is consulting on capping their share at 13% of the est. £15bn cost.

8/15 Today also shows the need to reform leasehold law. Urgently and extensively.

How did having a professional freeholder help here?

Would residents have acted quicker to get remediation works done if they were masters of their own buildings, if proper funding were available?

9/15 Today does not justify passing the Fire Safety Act.

The changes to be made by that Act have already been forced via the Advice Notes.

The Advice Notes did not help at this building.

10/15 This fire does not justify the gov't approach to targeting resources based solely on height or type of cladding.

That approach did not fix this building.

We need comprehensive assessment using a properly calibrated risk model.

It should already have happened.

11/15 Yes, there is £5.1 billion available (although not yet) and, yes, that's a lot of money.

But it's not nearly enough. And it doesn't cover all of the issues, such as defective compartmentation.

And it still leaves leaseholders paying at least 2/3rds of the est. £15bn cost

12/15 And the money is not being spent on the highest risk buildings fast enough.

This is an over-18 metre building with extensive ACM cladding, which the gov't deems high risk.

But still not remediated, nearly 4 years after Grenfell, even with ACM fund in place since 2019.

13/15 And there are countless other buildings that won't get any financial support or where leaseholders will be forced to pay via #forcedloans, which also won't cover all costs.

The solution requires action and money. Gov't spin and PR won't solve anything.

14/15 The fire service does a difficult job in dangerous circumstances.

That does not justify blanket imposition of waking watches with no evidence to demonstrate their effectiveness.

Initial reports here say that the waking watch was ineffective.

15/15 Last but not least, this is an entirely foreseeable consequence of the government abdicating its responsibilities since Grenfell to drive comprehensive risk assessment and funding to rectify these issues.

Today illustrates the depth of the government's failure.