You are viewing 1 of your 1 free articles
Swan will not pass on the cost of remediating external wall systems and balconies to leaseholders, the housing association has announced today.
The landlord, which manages around 11,500 homes in London and Essex, said in a statement that it “will not be seeking to recover the costs of remediating external wall systems from leaseholders” following the passing of the Building Safety Act.
The Building Safety Act received Royal Assent on 28 April – nearly five years after 72 people died in the Grenfell Tower fire.
Under the act, leaseholders will be protected from having to pay for cladding work on buildings taller than 11 metres.
For non-cladding work, leaseholders could be billed a maximum of £10,000, or £15,000 in London, however these costs will only be incurred if the original developer cannot be found or the building’s freeholder is unable to pay.
Inside Housing asked Swan whether it will be passing on non-cladding costs to leaseholders, but a spokesperson said the housing association would not be providing any further information at the moment.
Sarah Stevenson-Jones, director of health and building safety at Swan, said: “We appreciate the impact of having to remediate external wall systems has been significant for our customers, who have been understandably concerned about the costs of this work.
“While we continue to work with central government and developers to remediate buildings, we are pleased to be able to provide the reassurance that leaseholders will be protected from the costs of remediation work on external wall systems and balconies.”
Campaigners have previously urged the government to cover non-cladding costs in instances where developers or freeholders cannot be forced to pay for the work.
Meanwhile, leaseholders living in buildings below 11 metres are not protected under the new law, with the government stating that it will look on a case-by-case basis to determine whether these blocks need work.
Last month, housing minister Stuart Andrew said there was “no systematic fire risk” in buildings of this height and that options such as fire alarms would be a more appropriate and proportionate fix in most cases.
Already have an account? Click here to manage your newsletters
Related stories