Thread by @PeteApps

⚠️ Breaking news on building safety⚠️

Govt press release pledges:

- Legal commitment that no leaseholder in buildings above 11m pays to remove cladding
- Developers who own buildings and other building owners 'that can afford to do so' legally obliged to pay non-cladding costs

- Where building owner does not have resources to pay, there will be a Florrie's Law cap of £10k (£15k in London) on what can be billed to leaseholders. This is to be backdated and includes waking watch (so if you've already paid £7k, further costs capped at £3k)

- Govt will give itself power to apply levies to more new builds and increase rates if industry does not comply. Says it "hopes not to use these powers".

- Courts to be given powers to prevent use of shell companies by developers to avoid liability

- Cost Contribution Orders will be available for product manufacturers if prosecuted. Could be ordered to "pay their fair share on buildings requiring remediation".

- Residents will also be able to take action against product manufacturers, with limitation period of 30 years

Various questions on all this - and I'm pausing the Grenfell Inquiry to go through it so this is by no means considered - but:

- A lot rides on how the legal protection is worded. Will it really offer the protection the press release claims?

- Who is going to pay for non-cladding? These costs are massive, and the number of buildings where there is no available developer is high. If it's Florrie's Law protection for leaseholders, then who picks up the rest of the tab?

- Are social landlords (local authorities and housing associations) considered building owners which have the available resources to fix without govt support? Because if so, that's a huge chunk of money coming out of the social housing sector which will have real implications

- Florrie's Law hasn't actually been all that successful in stopping large leaseholder charges. Will this be any better?

- Also £10,000 is still a lot of money. So is £15,000 in London. Why is it fair to make London leaseholders pay five grand more??

- The Cost Contribution Orders and power to sue product manufacturers looks pretty good though. This stuff is much more tracable than who built the building. Investors in the companies implicated in the building safety crisis should pay attention. These costs are huge.

Also, what are you going to do about below 11m buildings Michael? There are many clad in highly combustible products and your latest guidance will almost certainly result in assessors ordering the remediation of at least the most dangerous (still likely to be in the thousands)