EWS latest: Government has called for all EWS checks on buildings under 18m where remediation has been recommended to now be reviewed.

Expert advice says result should be changed if it is felt initial judgement is not “proportionate or cost effective”.
insidehousing.co.uk/news/governmen…
Is in response to RICS stating that buildings with EWS are still likely require remediation even after gov announcement. RICs says valuers must take into account all known information that would affect a value.Or in other words, you can’t wish away an EWS.
insidehousing.co.uk/news/buildings…
The gov has advised that the reviews should be carried out by competent professionals. I've asked what qualifications ‘competent professionals’ will need. Waiting on a response.

If anything like the current EWS rules, do we not face just replaying the last 18 months?
Lack assessors and insurance issues in the last 18 months show that it isn’t easy to find a ‘competent professional’ for checks. Leaseholders who have waited months for their initial EWS check, may now have to wait months to get it reversed (with no guarantee that it will change)
And it will likely be leaseholders who pay for these checks again. EWS checks are not cheap either (see below).

While a review might not be as extensive as a full check (and likely cheaper), I can’t see how a decision will be come to without an inspection
Again, seems like those who acted quickest are being punished by unpredictable gov response. We’ve seen this before. Residents👇were told that they would be barred from the building safety fund because they had already accepted loans to fix building
insidehousing.co.uk/news/news/leas…
There are already issues with assessors getting insurance to carry out EWS checks in the first place, as well as nervousness over liability. Can’t see a rush of people keen to sign off buildings previously deemed unsafe as safe now. If they get it wrong, liability will be huge.
Just leaves the question…If, as the government now says, buildings below 18m are inherently safe and banks should lend on them, why wasn’t this assessed and decided on 18 months ago before the Consolidated Advice Note was brought out. Would have saved so much worry and heartache
I think the answer is that at the time the government probably thought that there was risk in these buildings. 2019 was a year of some huge fires in buildings under 18m. The Cube, Richmond House, Barking etc. Details here👇insidehousing.co.uk/insight/insigh…
Before the advice note, banks were not worried about buildings under 18m. However, when published the gov inserted a feeling of risk around these buildings within the lending community. Reversing that feeling is really bloody hard. As the below shows. insidehousing.co.uk/news/news/bank…
Can see why leaseholders get frustrated. Like many of instances in the crisis, the gov has made an announcement over something it has little control over and then crosses its fingers that the industry will respond. In the case of EWS that response is happening slowly, if at all.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Jack Simpson

Jack Simpson Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @JSimpsonjourno

2 Aug
Just read this excellent @FT investigation. Service charge transparency is a huge issue for leaseholders. I've spoken to dozens of flat owners in recent years who have had to pay towards a lift they cannot use, a gym they cannot access, or a concierge service that doesn't exist.
@FT Have often wanted to try and pull together a list of the most random/ridiculous things listed in people's service charge breakdowns. Things like this👇. If anyone has any particularly bizarre things they have been charged for, drop me a DM. insidehousing.co.uk/news/news/hous…
@FT There are definitely issues with both social housing landlords and private landlords/management companies. From my experience it does often seem harder for leaseholders to challenge private companies over charges. But this is just from those leaseholders that I have spoken too.
Read 4 tweets
7 Jul
Think this is what they call moving the goalposts.

Gov has repeatedly said the Building Safety Bill would be the 'correct legislative approach' to prevent l'holders from having to pay remediation costs.

Now the bill is out...that is no longer the case🤔
insidehousing.co.uk/news/minister-…
Here is the switcheroo in all of its glory.

18 March: Lord Greenhalgh writes to peers ahead of crunch vote on fire safety bill, calling on them not to support the amendment because.
This followed similar comments from policing minister Kit Malthouse on the 23 February. While representing the government in a Fire Safety Bill debate, he said👇
Read 5 tweets
3 Jun
I’ve been covering the plight of leaseholders caught up in the cladding scandal for 3years now but the tale below is definitely up there with one of the most shocking I have seen.

Highlights just how ridiculous the building safety crisis has become… insidehousing.co.uk/news/housing-a…
First and foremost, the £101,500 bill is one of the biggest there is.

It's even more eyewatering when you consider that many of the leaseholders and shared owners paid well below the sum when purchasing their properties
One leaseholder for example says he paid £88k to buy his flat outright several years ago.

Absurd that he will now be billed more than that for remedial works for a building he was assured met regulations at the time of purchase.
Read 13 tweets
1 Jun
London Fire Brigade report confirms my scoop from May that the smoke detection system at New Providence Wharf failed when fire hit.

This meant communal doors did not automatically close and smoke filled communal areas.

Full details of the report here👇insidehousing.co.uk/news/new-provi…
The report illustrates a pretty chaotic scene of "smoke-logged' corridors and firefighters having to use smoke hoods to help get residents out of the building Image
This failure is pretty shocking but even more shocking when you consider the building is clad in Grenfell-style ACM cladding (still not removed 4 years after Grenfell) and has timber decked balconies.
Read 8 tweets
7 May
This is absolutely shocking!

Four years since Grenfell and a fire at a block still covered in Grenfell-style ACM.

Videos seem to show that it has spread across the external wall and has affected more than one flat. Beggars belief!
I wrote about this block More than two years ago. At the time the developer Ballymore had given leaseholders a two week ultimatum over the costs to remove this dangerous cladding. insidehousing.co.uk/news/residents…
Just reading over this story again and it is amazing the Ballymore's position on the cladding at the time.
Read 6 tweets
15 Apr
The @insidehousing team has spent weeks investigating the landlords yet to start work to remove dangerous ACM cladding from their blocks 4 years since Grenfell.

From offshore companies, to big developers, to unfindable freeholders, here they are👇insidehousing.co.uk/insight/named-…
The findings are shocking on two levels.

Firstly, nearly 4 years after the Grenfell Tower tragedy and despite gov pressure, a £200m removal fund, and the fact that ACM has been confirmed as really bloody dangerous 👇, these firms have yet to start work insidehousing.co.uk/news/news/gren…
Remember, this comes after the government stated in 2019 that work needed to be COMPLETED by June 2020.

If freeholders didn't have a plan in place by Dec 2019, the gov threatened 'enforcement action'
insidehousing.co.uk/news/grenfell-…
Read 11 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(