You are viewing 1 of your 1 free articles
HCLG committee ‘extremely concerned’ over potential for uncapped cladding loan bills
MPs have said they are “extremely concerned” that the government has implied leaseholders in blocks of flats could still face uncapped costs for critical fire safety repairs.
In a letter to building safety minister Lord Stephen Greenhalgh, Clive Betts, chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Select Committee, said responses provided by the government on the loan scheme for leaseholders in buildings of less than 18 metres in height left them facing potential financial havoc.
It followed the government saying in answer to questions from the committee about the Building Safety Bill: “If leaseholders are liable for building safety works, these should be made payable via the service charge and all the existing provisions will remain.
“Leaseholders will have the protection that, unless they have been properly consulted (or the First-Tier Tribunal grants the landlord dispensation from the strict consultation requirements) the charges will be capped.”
Mr Betts said: “We are extremely concerned that the response seems to provide conditions for leaving some leaseholders’ payments uncapped – either where they are ‘properly consulted’ or when ‘the First-Tier Tribunal grants the landlord dispensation from the consultation requirements’.”
READ MORE
He asked the minister why the government still considered it acceptable for leaseholders to face uncapped costs in any circumstances.
Mr Betts said the committee was also alarmed because where urgent remediation work was needed, consultation might be dispensed with at the tribunal.
“No leaseholder should face uncapped costs for remediating historic defects not of their making – indeed we maintain leaseholders should pay nothing at all,” he added.
The committee also wanted to know the rationale for the government’s decision to extend from six to 15 years the period for claims under Section 1 of the Defective Premises Act 1972, allowing leaseholders in towers to bring claims.
“What was the evidence for setting the upper limit at 15 years?” Mr Betts wrote.
“How many more building will be brought into scope as a result and how many buildings will miss out because they were built more than 15 years ago?”
Sign up for our fire safety newsletter
Already have an account? Click here to manage your newsletters
