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
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.
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.
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👇
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.