Parliament Votes to NOT protect or assist Leaseholders in Cladding Scandal.. £10 Billion DISGRACE

[spyguy]

4 hours ago, LesDawson said:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/apr/29/leaseholders-horrified-after-final-vote-on-10bn-fire-safety-costs

 

I see this was added to the long thread on Grenfell and Cladding, but with the vote in, and that disgraceful result I think this deserves it own thread.

 

Unbelievable, disgusting.

No.

They need to sue the builder.

Its between the house buyer and government.

 

[Wayward]

3 hours ago, nome said:

Got lots of sympathy for any owner occupiers caught up in this, not so much sympathy for the many btl speculators.

Exactly....if they supported the OOs only there would be funds to cover cladding and the other 'safety' works...BTLers should be made to face risk of investment alongside the benefits.

[steve99]

6 hours ago, Si1 said:

Yeah foreign speculators should be bailed at the expense of schools and hospitals.

Nothing to do with it.  Real people, like working people in the UK and other classes of real people (not speculators, they dont count) have paid mega prices to developers purely for the leases on these flats. The builders/developers should be 100% held accountable and if the building company/developer has closed shop, the directors should be liable for every penny, not the tax payer. It should be the government prosecuting these parasites instead, wont ever happen as most of the current tory party (and a few Labour)  are connected either directly or indirectly to every aspect of housing/building/development/leasehold extortion/ land banking and so on.

[MARTINX9]

There is a lesson to be learned here - don't buy a leasehold flat in a high rise block.

Why should I - and others who didn't - have to bail out people who did.

If my stocks and shares ISA fell in value - should the taxpayer bail out my losses? After all it wasn't my fault - but the investment managers who made bad decisions? Don't really see any difference frankly?

 

[Locke]

9 hours ago, steve99 said:

The builders/developers should be 100% held accountable

What if they followed the law at the time to the letter?

[Locke]

12 hours ago, Badhairday said:

The building was signed off as habitable based on building regulations of the time

The green regulations are why the cladding was installed in the first place and the regulations around fire safety are why it was inadequte.

The solution is for the government to STOP BUGGERING AROUND IN PEOPLE'S LIVES.

[crescent]

19 hours ago, longgone said:

Stop paying CT tax and service charge

and go to prison - have  CCJ registered? hummmmmmm 

I sadly do not think that is the answer

[pig]

So what happens now ?

The freeholders / friends of BJ regime hoover up the leaseholders properties for peanuts, spend a bit on the cladding and everybody happy ?

[doomed]

Whilst I do not think the taxpayer should be on the hook for this developers should.

[doomed]

3 hours ago, Locke said:

What if they followed the law at the time to the letter?

Did they follow the correct laws at the time? I thought the cladding was out of spec at time of build, I could be mistaken though.

[Locke]

17 minutes ago, doomed said:

Did they follow the correct laws at the time? I thought the cladding was out of spec at time of build, I could be mistaken though.

They did. Even Kingspan followed the letter, although not the spirit of the law in making the cladding.

[desiringonlychild]

20 hours ago, longgone said:

So its millionaire or nothing in london now in that case.

When house searching in London in 2019, I found that the HTB developments were far too expensive and I could only afford older flats. Also the new build developments in my area of north London were targeted at downsized with £1 million + equity.  My 1930s mansion block flat has no cladding and freehold is owned by residents. In 2020, a flat in my development sold for £30k more than what I bought it for due to stamp duty holiday. The people mainly affected are those who bought new build flats with 5% deposit/shared ownership.

[longgone]

2 minutes ago, desiringonlychild said:

When house searching in London in 2019, I found that the HTB developments were far too expensive and I could only afford older flats. Also the new build developments in my area of north London were targeted at downsized with £1 million + equity.  My 1930s mansion block flat has no cladding and freehold is owned by residents. In 2020, a flat in my development sold for £30k more than what I bought it for due to stamp duty holiday. The people mainly affected are those who bought new build flats with 5% deposit/shared ownership.

They may not be cladded but are fire safety rules going to change ?

Maybe a converted house and share of freehold maybe a compromise.

 

[desiringonlychild]

8 minutes ago, longgone said:

They may not be cladded but are fire safety rules going to change ?

Maybe a converted house and share of freehold maybe a compromise.

 

Converted houses with 2 or more flats fall under the fire safety order. The current guidance is that low rise is fine esp re EWS1 and getting a mortgage. I read the bill that passed yesterday and it basically covered risk assessing external walls and fire doors (which we already have). 

 

I mean, it isn't just leasehold, there are some freehold houses out there refused mortgages due to wooden cladding on exterior. 

[bearishonhouses]

IF, and it's a big if, the builders, cladding manufacturers (and all other parties) complied fully with then existing building regs and laws, then I think the government screwed up by failing to have building regs that were fit for purpose. In those circumstances, I am prepared to pay increased to taxes to enable individuals who suffered through no fault of their own, to be compensated.  

If this is not the case, then I do not see why my taxes should fund the compensation. Sue the prior vendor, builder, inspector and anyone else who failed to their job properly. 

 

[morty]

I feel like the floodgates would open if they allowed this.  Anyone who’s property value decreased through no fault of their own would seek compensation surely?  

[dryrot]

7 minutes ago, morty said:

I feel like the floodgates would open if they allowed this.  Anyone who’s property value decreased through no fault of their own would seek compensation surely?  

Hang on - this is hpc! For hpc to happen someone must "lose". It should have happened in 2003...

from wolfstreet:

"for example, a one-bedroom flat in Manchester failed to sell last month despite being listed for half the £330,000 its owner had paid in 2017. In another example, a two-bedroom flat at The Decks, an award-winning design with flammable cladding, sold at auction for £52,000 last year, 62% lower than the price its owners had paid (£134,450) in 2008."

[Si1]

24 minutes ago, morty said:

I feel like the floodgates would open if they allowed this.  Anyone who’s property value decreased through no fault of their own would seek compensation surely?  

This must put pressure on the govt to stop ludicrous house price props. Gordon Brown's 110% unregulated mortgages. David Cameron's Help to Buy. Both of these seeing people ruined, but if course no govt can possibly take responsibility for it, the floodgates will open because there are so many victims, and besides that would be admission of govt guilt. Just political reality.

[24gray24]

It's all baloney. 

You buy a house with structural problems, it's your property lemon.  

Don't pay them a penny. 

[winkie]

Out of interest is this inflammable cladding and poor compartmentalisation problem with both low and high rise homes purely a UK problem? ....do buildings in Europe or USA suffer from this.