Jump to content
The Christmas Logo Competition is back. See thread in Sheffield Discussions for details ×

Apartments With Cladding/Fire Break/Compartmentation Concerns

Recommended Posts

Hello all,

 

I'm a resident and leaseholder of a flat in Sheffield with issues concerning cladding and insufficient compartmentation. This has amounted to is an expensive waking watch and numerous S20 demands for money towards remediation works and heightened insurance costs. The UK cladding action group (which concerns itself with all things fire safety, not just cladding) has an ever growing presence within the media and is putting our case for reduced liability towards these costs.

 

The UK cladding action group on Facebook seemingly only has a handful of leaseholders. I find this difficult to believe given the number of apartment buildings across the city. Please join the group if this issue concerns you. With more members, its easier to coordinate our efforts communicating with local council and MPs and effect real change.

 

You are not responsible for these fire safety issues, and you should not be having to pay for their remediation!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Adam Brooks said:

Hello all,

 

I'm a resident and leaseholder of a flat in Sheffield with issues concerning cladding and insufficient compartmentation. This has amounted to is an expensive waking watch and numerous S20 demands for money towards remediation works and heightened insurance costs. The UK cladding action group (which concerns itself with all things fire safety, not just cladding) has an ever growing presence within the media and is putting our case for reduced liability towards these costs.

 

The UK cladding action group on Facebook seemingly only has a handful of leaseholders. I find this difficult to believe given the number of apartment buildings across the city. Please join the group if this issue concerns you. With more members, its easier to coordinate our efforts communicating with local council and MPs and effect real change.

 

You are not responsible for these fire safety issues, and you should not be having to pay for their remediation!

Would have thaught whoe ever owns the building . Chase tthe architect who sanctioned the work and council who passed it off said it was okay

Edited by spider1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, spider1 said:

Would have thaght it was the free holders responsibility 

You and the rest of logically minded society :) The construction company who didn't adequately test materials or failed to see an issue with installation also have a role to play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The program on last night revealed that the responsibility could be the homeowners as the property’s were rendered worthless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The answer is still very unclear but here a few comments.

1. Assume a block built by L which still owns the freehold reversion, that each flat's the subject of its own long lease granted by L to T, and that there's no third-party management company joined in the leases nor any RTM company.

2. L is initially responsible for all block outgoings and service delivery.

3. But each lease obliges T to pay service charge and sets-out what items fall within this charge.

4. So replacement of external cladding- on Common Parts- is always going to be a service charge outgoing; L unloads the cost onto T.

5. Maybe L might have rights of recourse against its contractors and/or its block insurer and/or NHBC etc. If so, its contractual rights would perhaps free the service charge from having to fund the works.

6. Those contractors who selected/designed/ordered/added the cladding might all be liable to L, in varying proportions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so lease holder is in real bother then all passing re sponsibility to owner of building 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20/11/2020 at 13:39, Adam Brooks said:

You are not responsible for these fire safety issues, and you should not be having to pay for their remediation!

This is - quite simply - a claim of how you'd like the world to be, nothing more. Trust me, I'd like it too... but it probably won't turn out like this. The reason people are getting up to speed slowly with this is because it's currently such an unknown, and people are lazy, apathetic or just have other things on, like trying to keep their jobs etc..

 

We've all heard horror stories of Leaseholders being presented with bills for life-changing sums of money. We're all preparing ourselves. However, right now, we just don't know. What we do know is that every single party involved in any way will try their hardest to pass the buck... whether that be Leaseholders, Freeholders, the Buildings Insurance, the original Developer, the Architect, the Council, the Government... all will do their utmost to shirk responsibility and I feel a bill will head the way of Leaseholders, I'd bet on it.

 

For the time-being it's probably unlikely you'll get more people joining pressure groups and suchlike because they're in the dark right now. Sure, people are finding they cannot remortgage, and they cannot sell... and there's this dark shadow looming on the horizon... but the fact is the Inspectors who need to do the work to estimate the costs are in short supply so many buildings do not yet even have an idea of their exposure. Add to that the fact that we are in the middle of a sheep (herd-like) mentality where all these buildings that were considered "safe" for many years and now inherently "unsafe" because of one, single - terrible, terrible - incident, in our case, 200 miles away. The idea of increased vigilance, improved  technology and smarter procedures just doesn't seem to be enough to consider the risk reasonably remediated - we all have to go the whole hog!

 

That means time. Time will tell. Once people are being presented with these life-changing bills you will get a build-up of steam. For now, most people are waiting to see what drops in their lap... and, even then, it will be particular to a person... a £10,000 bill to someone might be life-changing, to someone else not. A £50,000 bill is where it starts to get really troublesome! For now you'll likely have Management Companies making claims on the Buildings Insurance or the Building Guarantee - and you'll have those organisations fighting tooth-and-nail to reject them, on any premise... even if you filled out the (almost always individual) claim form incorrectly!

 

I reckon most Leases will have been written very carefully to point out how something like the building structure has been demised to each apartment - a ludicrous notion if you think about it - but possibly one of the mechanisms (happy to be corrected) as to how others are trying to wash their hands of this situation and pass on the costs to Leaseholders.

 

For me, I would be happy if the costs were split between Government fund, some Insurance and Leaseholders... but what's more important is that things start to get moving... not because of the sudden increased risk of fire and death... but because of the uncertainty and the way these properties are now effectively mothballed. I am saving money now, rather than putting my head in the sand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Hippogriff said:

I reckon most Leases will have been written very carefully to point out how something like the building structure has been demised to each apartment

No- just the opposite, in fact!

 

Almost every 'modern' long lease demises only:

a. the airspace within the flat;

b. internal non-load bearing walls between any two rooms in the flat; and

c. just the inner skim of plaster on the walls/ceiling plus the top bit of the floor.

 

All other parts of the building (structural or otherwise), and all service media outside the individual flats, will be clearly stated to be Common Parts.

Edited by Jeffrey Shaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Jeffrey Shaw said:

No- just the opposite, in fact!

 

Almost every 'modern' long lease demises only:

a. the airspace within the flat;

b. internal non-load bearing walls between any two rooms in the flat; and

c. just the inner skim of plaster on the walls/ceiling plus the top bit of the floor.

 

All other parts of the building (structural or otherwise), and all service media outside the individual flats, will be clearly stated to be Common Parts.

 

57 minutes ago, Jeffrey Shaw said:

No- just the opposite, in fact!

 

Almost every 'modern' long lease demises only:

a. the airspace within the flat;

b. internal non-load bearing walls between any two rooms in the flat; and

c. just the inner skim of plaster on the walls/ceiling plus the top bit of the floor.

 

All other parts of the building (structural or otherwise), and all service media outside the individual flats, will be clearly stated to be Common Parts.

Whats that mean  Mr  Shaw can we have in english so we can understand     Thankyou

Edited by spider1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.