Thread by @lewis_goodall

On holiday for a week but a few quick thoughts about the building safety bill- what it does do and crucially what it doesn't.

First of all in terms of space for litigation it goes further than many had expected.

Campaign groups have also cautiously welcomed the greater...

....accountability the new regulator might offer.

And reforms to building construction, incorporating recommendations made by the Hackitt review will be much welcomed.

But there are some key problems both in terms of the policy particulars and the philosophical approach.

Firstly on litigation

Extending rights on litigation for "substandard work" to 15 years (even though it's applied retrospectively) will do nothing for older buildings. Transport House, a building whose story I've reported on below, would not be covered.

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1402743853682249728?s=20

Even when litigation might apply, the question is whether it's a realistic option. For many it simply won't be. The asymmetry of power and resources is simply enormous. The prospect of small groups of leaseholders successfully taking on massive developers is a remote one.

Even if they could muster a challenge, it would be a risk. Many developers will argue that the rules and regulations are vague. Sometimes they'll have a point. Courts may rule in their favour. Then what happens? Leaseholders have their original costs to bear AND legal bills.

Then there's the problem for companies which have become insolvent. Who do you sue then? Answer is no-one.

and EVEN if it were ultimately successful, it could take years. Leaseholders are in dire financial straits *now*. Their lives are frozen *now.* They can't sell their properties now. This is a problem *now*- and for non cladding issues there just isn't help now.

And that's the other asymmetry of all this. The government's response continues to be focussed on a) cladding b) buildings over 18m c) future buildings. There remains little (save litigation) for the many buildings which have different problems to a and shorter than b.

Likewise, as I say, the changes to the regulation and regulator will be much welcomed in terms of ensuring buildings in the future don't have these problems (or are less likely to). But that does nothing for leaseholders in this position right now.

And that adverts to the philosophical issue lurking at the government's response to all this. In saying the regulatory system needs to change, in accepting a new regulator is needed, that the buildings safety regime has to change, Robert Jenrick and the government are...

...tacitly accepting there's been a failure of the current system. He and they are right and it isn't one confined to one administration. As I've reported here, it goes back to poor building practiced and regulation over decades.

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1410244106387927047?s=20

But in accepting that, logically it flows that the state has had a hand to play in leaseholders' woes. And if so, the question is, why isn't there something in the bill, or in the govt's response more generally, which recognises that and compensates leaseholders accordingly?

Government says developers should pay and they don't want taxpayers exposed. But a) often developers don't accept fault (see problems outlined above) and will not pay b) taxpayers will be exposed to destabilisation of property market c) leaseholders are taxpayers too and paid....

...tax to the state on their defective properties, the same state which didn't regulate the construction industry properly.

Will explore all of this more detail when I'm back. Tonight @BenChu_ will be holding the fort looking at the bill on tonight's show. And in the meantime, take a look at the last piece we made on this issue, broadcast last week. Produced by @jakemorristw bbc.co.uk/programmes/p09…