Thinking aloud thread: what's actually happening in blocks where there is no outside funding to cover remediation? (prompted by reading about the problem of collective action in condominium) 1/
Let's assume leaseholders and freeholders agree problem has to be fixed (safety reasons, EWS1 reasons etc). First: need reliable experts to advice on what is ?necessary ?possible. Decisions: A) aim for EWS B1 or higher? B) do it now or hold out in hope for more gvt money? 2/
Second, does lease enable freeholder to recover costs from leaseholders? Maybe. Usually yes, but may be ambiguity. Complicates decision making. 3/
Third, is there a 'free rider' problem? Most will decide to fix whatever the strict legal position, but what about dissenters?. Fourth, what if some (often many, most?) simply cannot pay? Do the others by consensus agree to meet the shortfall? what if it is simply too big? 4/
Fourth, how are groups making decisions? Led by a few? Consensus? division? tension? (and lots of stress) 5/
Finally, what is, in the real world, going to happen? Perhaps if we had some interdisciplinary research/journo investigations on this, this would show the gvt that the problem is too big for buildings to solve without gvt support (not just financial)? 6/end.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Nothing new in this long thread (13), recap on who should pay for fire remediation. Remember: gvt has said from early on leaseholders should not pay. 1/13
BUT the statement from @team-_greenhalgh before @mhclg select committee yesterday is not unexpected. There’s been a drift from this towards being ‘affordable’ over recent months 2/13
Who *should* pay? IN LAW? Those responsible. Most likely route: action under Defective Premises Act 1972 (person taking on work – eg developer, builder, architect - has duty that work is fit for habitation) 3/13 law.ox.ac.uk/housing-after-…