Dangerous Cladding Leaseholder Support 2020-11-16
2020-11-16
TAGS
Response quality
Questions & Answers
Q1
Partial Answer
▸
Context
Leaseholders face serious issues due to dangerous cladding, including insurance difficulties and EWS1 form nightmares. Many buildings deemed out of scope of the building safety fund.
What support are you providing to leaseholders with properties that have dangerous cladding? I thank the Minister for his continued engagement on these issues, but the difficult and serious issues facing tens of thousands of leaseholders around the country are growing. Buildings unable to get insurance, EWS1 form nightmares even for buildings without cladding, and many deemed out of scope of the building safety fund. Will you meet me and Manchester City Council to discuss an excellent piece of work done on these impacts?
Of course I will continue to engage with her and will happily meet her, as I think I did in July. She raised the EWS1 form particularly; it is worth pointing out that this is not a Government document but devised by RICS. Not all lenders require it, some use other tools. Lenders that do require it are working with us to ensure more nuanced tools resolve leaseholders' concerns. We do not support a blanket approach to the use of EWS1 forms for buildings less than 18 metres in height.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Under Review
Working With Partners
Response accuracy
Q2
Partial Answer
▸
Context
Three years after the Grenfell tragedy and a year since the Bolton Cube fire, over 203 high-rise blocks remain clad with flammable aluminium composite material or high-pressure laminate. Many thousands more are clad with equally flammable materials.
Minister, is it not about time to come clean about the serious limitations of the size and scope of the building safety fund? Up to 1.5 million people are desperate, trapped in this nightmare. What bold, urgent action does the Minister intend to take?
With respect to ACM cladding, £600 million is available for remediation; 97% of buildings with ACM have either completed or started their remediation. For non-ACM-clad buildings, a significant number of applications have been processed and further information requested to advance these applications. We will get the money out as quickly as possible while encouraging builders and owners to remediate themselves.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Working With Partners
Under Review
Response accuracy
Q3
Direct Answer
▸
Context
On July 20, the Secretary of State stated that it is unacceptable for leaseholders to worry about fixing historic safety defects. By October 16, however, the Housing Minister mentioned solutions protecting leaseholders from unaffordable costs.
Could you clarify the Government's policy on what costs leaseholders should bear for cladding removal? Not any costs but unaffordable ones. Does this change in stance cause great concern and upset among leaseholders expecting no costs?
There has been no change in policy. The Government are clear that we do not expect, and we do not want, leaseholders to bear the costs of remediation for unsafe buildings they were not responsible for. The cost should fall on owners through warrantee schemes or builders.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Response accuracy