Massive cost after Grenfell cladding found on my building?

Massive cost after Grenfell cladding found on my building?

10:49 AM, 2nd November 2017, About 7 years ago 43

Text Size

The Grenfell fire has quite rightly forced all owners of high-rise blocks of flats to consider their safety, and in particular, analyse their cladding, if any.

I am the leaseholder of a flat in such a building.

It has been told it has the same cladding as Grenfell Tower, and must be removed and replaced, at a cost of over one million pounds. Each of the 90+ privately owned flats is about to be billed (over two years) for £13,500, plus a further £5000 for additional safety measures that have been recommended (fire-watch, etc.)

The insurance company have stated that as the building has not been damaged, they are not involved.

The Management company is convinced we should all have to pay – apart from their employer – the Freeholder.

It will ruin many leaseholders, including me.

Is the Freeholder liable – for allowing such a situation to take place about eight years ago, or inheriting such a situation (before they actually bought the Freehold!) We are putting our faith in our local M.P.

Anyone else having this same problem?

James


Share This Article


Comments

Ian Narbeth

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

13:03 PM, 7th November 2017, About 7 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Paul Fay at 07/11/2017 - 12:52
Paul, let us assume, for the sake of argument, that you are correct and that only specialist testing has identified the latent defect. In that case, it is hard to see how the freeholder is liable to the tenants. Perhaps the net has to be cast wider and the company that installed the cladding and the person who specified the cladding investigated. That will not be straightforward and the freeholder will need funds to pursue possible claims. Limitation issues and the continued existence/solvency of the contractor etc. still come into play.

Chris @ Possession Friend

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

13:09 PM, 7th November 2017, About 7 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Ian Narbeth at 07/11/2017 - 13:03
Surely the only recourse Leaseholder has - is against the freeholder, Isn't it for the freeholder to counter claim against the company he purchased / had cladding installed by.
If a glazier put in glass that wasn't safety glass, where you expect him as a trades person in that line of work to know what materials were safe ? ( sorry if I'm simplifying what others seem to complicate ? )

Ian Narbeth

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

13:48 PM, 7th November 2017, About 7 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Chris Daniel at 07/11/2017 - 13:09Yes, Chris which is my point that the freeholder will need funds to pursue possible claims. Given the facts as we know them I am doubtful that a claim can be made by the freeholder. As James is short of funds to pay for the new cladding I very much doubt he will want to spend money on legal fees and getting expert advice about a possible claim involving work carried out 8 years ago. Unless the freeholder has insurance that will pay for that advice, it may be throwing money away for the leaseholders to pay for the freeholder to embark on that course. They must also decide if they want the freeholder to be the claimant to try to recover or the defendant against whom they want to claim.

Giles Peaker

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

15:03 PM, 7th November 2017, About 7 years ago

Reply to the comment left by James Noble at 06/11/2017 - 10:46
James, there a quite a few other examples of this. And it is a huge problem. In one case a council is effectively buying the block as freehold interest was (deliberately) transferred to a dormant company with no assets. In others, leaseholders are facing huge bills.

Leaseholders will be facing huge bills in council and housing association blocks too, I suspect, where recoverable under the lease. Councils can’t afford to do their own blocks, let alone rescue private leaseholders.

Chris @ Possession Friend

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

15:04 PM, 7th November 2017, About 7 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Ian Narbeth at 07/11/2017 - 13:48
Ian, I'm not particularly interested in whether the Freeholder can afford to pursue things from his own perspective, - surely the leaseholders can sue the freeholder and if he can / won't pay - forfeit the freehold to the leaseholders. ?

Ian Narbeth

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

15:22 PM, 7th November 2017, About 7 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Chris Daniel at 07/11/2017 - 15:04
Chris
I don't follow your argument. If there is a latent defect that nobody knew about until the Grenfell fire, then how do you establish liability against the freeholder? If you can overcome limitation issues, does the freeholder have any resources to pay a damages claim?

Even if the leaseholders got control of the freehold as you suggest, how does that help them? Unless there is a massive rent roll the freehold won't have much capital value. The cladding still has to be replaced and someone has to pay. As I said in my first post, this looks to be a case where the loss lies where it falls. It is tough on James and the other leaseholders.

Giles Peaker

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

15:30 PM, 7th November 2017, About 7 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Chris Daniel at 07/11/2017 - 15:04
Chris, what could the leaseholders sue the freeholder for? The freeholder wasn’t negligent in relying on the fire safety/regulation compliance put forward by contractors. Can’t see any other basis for a claim. (Even setting aside limitation issues).

Besides, always a question if freeholder is worth suing.

Chris @ Possession Friend

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

16:48 PM, 7th November 2017, About 7 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Giles Peaker at 07/11/2017 - 15:30Freeholder always worth suing Giles, he can forgo the freehold to leaseholders if he can't pay.
Freeholder was person who chose the company and therefore responsible for the work carried out
&products used. Its for the Freeholder to pass on any liabilty to the company. - I do take the time limit issues on board. ( I'm not a solicitor, but seems straight forward to me )

Ian Narbeth

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

17:01 PM, 7th November 2017, About 7 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Chris Daniel at 07/11/2017 - 16:48
Chris
Provided you have loads of money you would be a great client for a litigator. Sue the freeholder and if he can't pay take over the freehold! £20K on account please and off to the races we go!
As both Giles and I have commented, it is not at all easy to make a case against the freeholder. The fact that he chose the contractor does not make him responsible for the contractor's work. I fear you are getting terribly confused about legal issues. This case is most definitely NOT straightforward.

Paul Fay

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

17:19 PM, 7th November 2017, About 7 years ago

I don't believe that the freeholder is liable. Prima fascie there is no negligence on his part. If there is a case, it is for possibly him to pursue even if funded by the leaseholders. That said, it's the lease holders whose interest is particularly compromised. The contractor and specifier probably havent been negligent either so I'd focus on the manufacturer in the first instance. They will probably have an insurance company stood behind them.

Leave Comments

In order to post comments you will need to Sign In or Sign Up for a FREE Membership

or

Don't have an account? Sign Up

Landlord Automated Assistant Read More