Campaigners have called for the leasehold system to be overhauled following a rally in central London to support cladding-hit flat owners.

The protestors gathered outside Parliament earlier this week to call for changes to the Building Safety Bill, which was – at the same time – being debated by MPs in the Commons.

The campaigners want to see changes to the proposed legislation that would protect all leaseholders from the cost of fire safety defects. 

However, MPs ended up voting against the changes previously proposed by the Lords, leaving cladding-hit flat owners in buildings under 11 metres to pick up the cost of the repairs.

Leaseholders in affected buildings above 11 metres are also concerned that they could still end up having to pay to remediate buildings they do not own.

Liberal Democrat London Assembly member Hina Bokhari (pictured centre) attends the rally with leaseholders Steph Pike and Reece Lipman

Liberal Democrat London Assembly member Hina Bokhari (pictured centre) attends the rally with leaseholders Steph Pike and Reece Lipman

Liberal Democrat London Assembly member Hina Bokhari (pictured centre) attends the rally with leaseholders Steph Pike and Reece Lipman

The Government insists that leaseholders are protected from the costs of dangerous buildings.

Earlier this year, the Secretary of State for Housing Michael Gove said leaseholders ‘are blameless, and it is morally wrong that they should be the ones asked to pay the price’.

However, recent Government amendments to the Building Safety Bill include some caveats, meaning many leaseholders could still have to pay life-changing sums for the remediation work.

A recent survey by the End Our Cladding Scandal campaign of more than 2,200 properties in buildings over 11 metres suggested that 64 per cent of leaseholders outside of London and 83 per cent of leaseholders in London will not be protected from all costs to fix non-cladding fire safety defects.

The EOCS is seeking for all leaseholder contributions to be reduced to zero and for leaseholder protections to be extended to buildings of all heights.

Liberal Democrat  leader Ed Davey speaks at the leaseholder rally outside of Parliament

Liberal Democrat  leader Ed Davey speaks at the leaseholder rally outside of Parliament

Liberal Democrat  leader Ed Davey speaks at the leaseholder rally outside of Parliament

MailOnline Property spoke to Hina Bokhari, Liberal Democrat London Assembly member, who attended the leasehold rally.

Leaseholders feel trapped, It is horrible for them and the pressure on them is constant 

She explained how cladding issues had thrown the wider issues about leasehold legislation into the spotlight.

She said: ‘There needs to be Government responsibility on the issue of leasehold. It needs to do an umbrella approach on this. 

‘We have learnt as the years have gone on that it is not just about cladding. There are so many issues with leaseholders and unless they deal with it properly, it is never going to end.

‘There needs to be a more serious approach to this. Gove needs to focus on leasehold issues only as it is a massive issue in itself. It has to be done properly. It cannot be a piecemeal approach as there are too many victims.

‘Leaseholders feel trapped, it is horrible for them and the pressure on them is constant.’

The rally saw campaigners call for more protection for cladding-hit flat owners who face large remediation bills

The rally saw campaigners call for more protection for cladding-hit flat owners who face large remediation bills

The rally saw campaigners call for more protection for cladding-hit flat owners who face large remediation bills

Leaseholder Reece Lipman, who was also at the rally, said: ‘It was great to see so many leaseholders, parents and friends out again making our voices heard, as well as cross party support from MPs, Lords and councillors.

‘This support has helped push the campaign forward immeasurably in the last few years to get us to where we are. 

‘But we should not still be having to fight this hard, so I hope that this continued pressure makes the Government reconsider those parts of the Building Safety Bill that are still leaving far too many leaseholders liable for bills they cannot pay and in properties that they cannot sell. We need a fix and we need it now.

He went on to describe the MPs vote as ‘very disappointing but not a surprise’.

He said: ‘The Government will have to concede on these points and others eventually, as they have done throughout the passage of this bill.

‘The alternative is still mass bankruptcy, foreclosures and evictions.

‘Until all of those holes are filled the problem will not go away. They need to fund the remediation up front, fix the buildings that need to be fixed and then claim the money back later from the responsible parties.

‘Until then this mess will carry on and people will still be in the same position they have been for years. So we will just have to keep fighting’.

More than 35 of the largest developers have signed a pledge to undertake fire safety work on buildings over 11 metres.

A spokesperson for the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities said: ‘Developer pledges will be converted into legally binding contractual commitments.

‘Our wide-ranging industry agreement, together with the Building Safety Bill, will help ensure those responsible for building remediation foot the bill, not innocent leaseholders.

‘Low-rise buildings are very unlikely to need costly remediation to make them safe. Our measures will help drive out unnecessary risk aversion and restore proportionality to the industry.’

The vote on the Building Safety Bill 

Liam Spender, a trustee of the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, and a senior associate at Velitor Law, provided the following round-up on the Building Safety Bill in the Commons earlier this week:

The Commons was considering the changes made to the Bill by the House of Lords (and there were several hundred amendments made there). 

In simple terms, the Government was asking the Commons to vote to remove certain changes made by the Lords and provides alternatives. 

The key issues for the Commons to consider were:

(1) what to do about resident owned (enfranchised) buildings

(2) what to do about under 11 metre buildings and

(3) whether leaseholders should pay anything for non-cladding costs. 

The Lords moved in favour of leaseholders on all three issues, extending costs protection for buildings of all types of ownership and all heights.

The Lords also changed the Bill so that no leaseholder living in a flat worth less than £1 million had to pay anything. 

The Government sought to reverse all of these changes made by the Lords.

Those attempts to reverse the Lords were all successful. 

On the first issue of resident owned (enfranchised) buildings, the Government has said it will open a consultation on how to protect leaseholders in enfranchised buildings.

We do not know the parameters of the review or when it will be conducted. 

On the second issue (buildings under 11 metres) the Government said that the extent of any problem did not justify extending protection to those buildings.

It promises a case-by-case review. 

Leaseholders in under 11m buildings are asked to write to Stuart Andrew at the Department for Levelling-Up, Housing and Communities if they are asked to pay for any cladding or non-cladding remedial costs. 

Issues one and two were voted on together.

The Commons voted by 316 to 188 to replace the Lords wording with its own and then by 318 to 189 that the Commons wording became part of the Bill. 

The end result is that under 11 metres and enfranchised buildings (owned by residents) are excluded from the Government’s so-called waterfall. 

They should still be protected by the Government’s recent deal with developers, expanded building control levy and by Building Safety Fund Mark II.

There will be uncertainty while the final details are being worked out. 

As above, we will have to see what additional protections (and they are needed) will be given to people living in enfranchised buildings.

For the moment they are excluded from any legal protection on their service charges. 

On the third issue of whether leaseholders should pay anything for non-cladding costs, the Government succeeded in re-introducing contributions of £10,000 for flats worth more than £175,000 outside London and £15,000 for flats worth more than £325,000 inside London. 

These contributions are only payable for non-cladding costs if developers and building owners do not pay.

Costs already paid toward waking watches, surveys and remedial works count toward the proposed caps. 

The Commons voted by 317 to 190 to replace the Lords’ wording with the Government’s wording and then by 318 to 188 to add the government’s wording to the Bill.  

The Building Safety Bill now goes back to the House of Lords on 26 April, a process known as ‘ping pong’.

Both Houses of Parliament must agree on the same text of each Bill.

Now that the Commons has made changes, the Lords must either accept or propose alternatives. 

The Lords is not an elected body. It consists almost entirely of members appointed by the Government for life.

The British constitution works on the basis that the unelected Lords defers to the will of the elected Commons. 

Unfortunately, as is the case today, where the Government has a large majority in the Commons, it means it can pretty much do as it pleases whether the Lords objects or not.

The best the Lords can do is slow things down and try to get the Government to think again.    

We have to trust that the Government will continue to cooperate on further changes.  

It is not over for this law until it becomes an Act of Parliament, which is still a few weeks away.

The Bill must be passed before the end of the current session, or it will fall.

We will have to watch closely to see whether the Lords has any appetite for further changes. 

The Lords’ appetite is inevitably dictated by the limited options on the constitutional menu, but we may yet see further attempts to amend.

A mixed day for leaseholders, but still important to remember it is a better day than would have been the case this time last year.

<!—->

Advertisement

This post first appeared on Dailymail.co.uk

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You May Also Like

Urgent warning for 150,000 grandparents missing out on £6,875 pension boost – how to claim

MORE than 150,000 grandparents could be missing out of on a hefty…

Cheapest and most expensive supermarkets revealed

Lidl is the cheapest supermarket for a basket of 20 frequently purchased…

Jeremy Hunt delivers the biggest personal tax cut since the 1980s as he sets the scene for a tax and spend battle with Labour at the next election

Jeremy Hunt yesterday delivered the biggest personal tax cut since the 1980s…

TikTok launches platform to help small businesses through coronavirus pandemic recovery

TikTok brought millions together through the pandemic with viral dances, home-baking tutorials…