Massive cost after Grenfell cladding found on my building?

Reply to the comment left by Giles Peaker at 03/11/2017 - 21:17
Regs are not prescriptive though. They are effectively a performance specification and if the performance is not met there is a strong argument for negligence. Building Control have no responsibility though - not sure why given that they approve works.

Latent damages act is definitely 15 years long stop - 3 years from knowledge. Extract from the act below.

Overriding time limit for negligence actions not involving personal injuries.

(1)An action for damages for negligence, other than one to which section 11 of this Act applies, shall not be brought after the expiration of fifteen years from the date (or, if more than one, from the last of the dates) on which there occurred any act or omission—
(a)which is alleged to constitute negligence; and
(b)to which the damage in respect of which damages are claimed is alleged to be attributable (in whole or in part).

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/37/section/1

Reply to the comment left by Paul Fay at 04/11/2017 - 01:54
Again, no negligence. Putting up cladding that was approved as meeting fire safety requirements is not negligent if it later turns out that it doesn’t. The freeholder is not reasonably required to carry out its own fire testing of the materials, indeed practically can’t.

If there is a claim against the manufacturers etc, it couldn’t be by the leaseholders.

Sorry, but unless the panels were defectively installed (and that doesn’t appear to be the issue), there is no claim by the leaseholders.

Reply to the comment left by Giles Peaker at 04/11/2017 - 09:31That's assuming that the cladding was certified to meet the standard.
Building regs state that the work shall adequately resist the spread of fire over external walls. My question is has this requirement been complied with and if not why not.
Self evidently the standard has not been met to the reasonable expectation of the person / organisation commissioning the work
Someone somewhere has been negligent. It's a case of identifying the negligent party - who may well be the manufacturer of the cladding. It may well be that the leaseholders can't claim directly but the freeholder could.
I am not a lawyer but I would definitely be exploring this avenue further if I were the OP.

Reply to the comment left by Paul Fay at 04/11/2017 - 11:36
If it didn't meet the requirement, then any claim by the freeholder would be in contract, not in negligence. 6 years limitation.

And, of course, finding who - manufacturer, fire lab assessor/approver etc - was responsible would be a nightmare. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41834128

Hence the public inquiry on Grenfell. That will take months and huge sums of money.

If the freeholder has the assets to investigate and establish who was at potential fault, on a now time barred claim, those might be better used on the current problem. And it doesn't help the OP at all.

Reply to the comment left by Paul Fay at 04/11/2017 - 11:36
Its very 'telling', that investigations into any cladding in the Social Housing sector, after Grenfell, is being actively and vigorously pursued ( rightly ) whereas the PRS is left to, sort it out 'Privately' with what is left of the debacle of the Civil Justice [sic] system.
Don't forget if your making a claim on the installers / manufacturers, to comply with the Debt Pre-Action Protocol !

Reply to the comment left by Chris Daniel at 04/11/2017 - 12:14
I don't think that is true. The Govt made the testing service available for private blocks (only 89 took them up on that. 87 failed).

It is up to private landlords to sort out their problems, in the same way it is up to the social landlords to sort out theirs. However, given that the private landlords don't seem to be acting fast, the Government is looking to councils to take enforcement steps to make them.

And then of course, there are situations where ownership of the building has been swiftly transferred to a dormant company with no assets, which can then go bust. Dumping the problem on the council - like this one. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-41556827

The government is not funding investigation or replacement for anyone at all, social or private.

Reply to the comment left by Giles Peaker at 04/11/2017 - 12:31
Thanks Giles, Interesting.
( Government is Social Housing, in a devolved form )
Councils taking over privately-run shady companies hiding behind 'the system' should seek to compulsory purchase in default of cost of works required after serving HHSRS notices.

Reply to the comment left by Chris Daniel at 04/11/2017 - 12:41
Social housing is councils and housing assocs. Not Govt.

CPOs are very expensive for councils. And few could afford to cover the works. It will fall on the leaseholders, inevitably.

Reply to the comment left by Giles Peaker at 04/11/2017 - 12:14
Giles. You may unlimitedly be correct but I don't see this as a case not worthy of further investigation. The management company should have all the paperwork associated with the work. The first thing that I would look at is what was specified and by whom. Was the product specified certified as fit for purpose? If it was, that's the specifier off the hook; no negligent specification. I agree, we can forget contract, that ship has sailed, but if it wasn't, they are in the frame. If the product was certified as fit for purpose, the manufacturer is in the frame for negligence. Does the manufacturer owe the freeholder / leaseholder a duty of care (a test for negligence)? I'd be inclined to the view that, prima fascia , they do.

As for identifying the organisation ultimately responsible, if the specifier is off the hook, I'd suspect that the manufacturer would be the target. If they can defend their position (in correspondence rather than court), then that defence would identify the next target. If they can't identify someone to pass the parcel to, good luck to them in court.

This is a large group of people with collective deep pockets. For the sake of a small contribution into a pooled resource (take it from the sinking fund), I feel that they would be poorly advised to simply resign themselves to footing the bill. I wouldn't based upon opinions expressed on the internet.

Reply to the comment left by Paul Fay at 04/11/2017 - 13:27
Paul, the point about all the cladding that has now failed was that it was certified as meeting the standards. The manufacturers would simply point at the fire test lab's approval. So no provable negligence there, either.

You can't simply put freeholder/leaseholder together as both owed any putative duty of care. It would be the freeholder only.

While as a litigation specialist, I am always happy when people are prepared to spend large sums on extended litigation, it is not a course of action I recommend unless there are clear, strong prospects of success, and recovery is likely (eg opponent won't go in administration).

It might be worth a look at, but no more. Simply assuming someone must be to blame is not a good basis to proceed.