My questions is why do leaseholders have to pay at all?

In situations where cladding and fire breaks have been installed that are not compliant with the law at the time - I agree. The installer should pay the bill. However, in many cases the installer will no longer be trading. In that case it's more difficult but maybe (because the issue appears to be widespread) a tax should be applied to the building industry to source Government funding of corrective actions.

Reply to the comment left by Rob Crawford at 09/11/2021 - 16:34
When I say law, I mean building standards/regulations for the time.

The manufacturers and installers ( Company Directors
etc ) should be held personally liable for selling and installing lethal products. end of.

Surely, this is not a leaseholder OR developer problem, firstly the leaseholder doesn't even own the building so why should they pay anything? secondly the developer / builder / owner who originally built the property and has a completion certificate confirming it was built to the regs in place at the time so how can they be to blame? that (to me) leaves whoever put the regs in place being at fault and hence they should pay perhaps as part of a PI claim against whoever advised the govt to put the regs in place. Just my thoughts.

Reply to the comment left by Vistaro at 10/11/2021 - 08:54
Assuming compliance with the regs! This is the issue, the regs have not been complied with!!

While I welcome Gove's questioning as evidence of at least one member of government showing some sense of fairness in the matter, I must admit one of my first thoughts was "I wonder how many leasehold properties he owns which are affected?". Sadly, Government actions over recent years have led me to a cynical search for politicians' hidden motives behind every new announcement.

Reply to the comment left by Old Mrs Landlord at 10/11/2021 - 09:35
They're all ' bent ' as is coming out in the news at the moment.

Reply to the comment left by Vistaro at 10/11/2021 - 08:54
Where was building control in all of this? The EWS1 reports being done are looking into all sorts of issues, most nothing to do with ACM cladding, and are finding missing firebreaks etc. So how could building control ever sign this off? Do they not have any liability? Stupid question I know.

Exactly, Councils need to be held to account, - they're quick enough to do it with House holders - owners who don't comply with every letter of Regs.

"Compliance with the regulations", not all, but a large proportion of such developments will have had their Building Regulatoins Completion Certificate issued by the Council who's planning department will have passed the plans in the first place.

The development will have been permitted on the basis of the materials etc stated but in many, as in our case, materials have been substiuted with inferior product such as thinner insulation, and processes such as fire breaks and stopping have been inadequately carried, a prima facie case of incompetence but also, where material shave been substituted, fraud and thus a developer responsibility.

However, this raises the question of what purpose does certification serve if it can't even deliver on what was one of the largest residential buildings outside of London at the time? it should be noted that the certification isn't issued in respect of the building as a whole but in respect of each unit and without which that unit cannot legally be occupied. In turn, a unit without a certificate has no liability to Council Tax, does it then follow that Councils have been illegally making Council TAx demands? A while ago the Treasury Committee asked the VOA if they had received enquiries as to a reduction in banding as a result of this and received an opaque response following which the TC head left and the matter has never been followed up on, i think it's time it was.