Thread by @suejbright

🧵Unfit for habitation? Thrust of gvt amendments to BSB is that there are more tools to go after those responsible for defects. Some leaseholders protected from paying but many still exposed. 2 problems. @team_greenhalgh. #flawed 1/6

1st: duty to remediate is not so narrow. By cl 88 duty arises if needed to prevent blg safety risk arising. This is wider than being 'unfit for habitation' (cl 122). So maybe duty to fix but no possible cause of action. 2/6

2nd: what makes blg unfit? Even ignoring the massive challenges of bringing litigation, will it work? Several causes of action hang on blg being unfit for habitation. What does this mean? Not much case law on point.3/6

If waking watch imposed, maybe strong pointer it was unfit. But if residents allowed to occupy pending remediation w/o ww, is it really unfit? Reason for remediation is not FRS action but lenders and EWS. Is this all 'smoke and mirrors'? 4/6

NCQ litigation: not yet reached trial (but even so 10 judge orders, several interim judgments online 😨). Comment by judge shows breach of blg regs not enough for DPA: must ALSO be unfit for habitation 5/6

Gvt creates new hurdles, will line lawyers pockets advising on likelihood of success, further delay remediation, and give no money to those needing to fix buildings. 6/end