Jump to content
DOSBODS
  • Welcome to DOSBODS

     

    DOSBODS is free of any advertising.

    Ads are annoying, and - increasingly - advertising companies limit free speech online. DOSBODS Forums are completely free to use. Please create a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

     

IGNORED

Bankrupted by Cladding?


Lightly Toasted

Recommended Posts

I have rented a few flats, they weren't too bad. The only issues were with noise issues from above or below. But anyone who is even marginally into gardening will struggle (I wasn't at the time). Some of the posher flats I could see myself living in, those converted former manor houses where each flat starts at half a million, but I'd rather just buy a house with garden at that price.

 

In terms of square footage, flats are appalling value, even worse than new build slavebox houses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Zero fucks to give on this. Anyone who buys a flat needs their fucking head examined. What mental case signs up to be a cash cow to the bent management company i.e. the builder. Yes bitch that light bulb in the corridor really did cost £5k, now cough the fuck up or deal with our (also bent) solicitors. That guy you never see who apparently waters the two plants weekly? He gets paid £1000 a week and is definitely not a relation to the management company/builder. 

Some flat owning BTL scumlord gets landed with a £50k fee for cladding? Good. Fuck them as well.

It's funny really, all these urban professional twats falling over themselves to buy this shitbox leasehold £400k 1 bed flats because they NEED the CITY LIVING. While the decent well-made 4 bed councils are being handed over for free to Somalians or any other gimmigrant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Owners of many flats need an EWS1 (cladding) certificate before they can remortgage or sell the flat. Last year the rules affected 300k flats - UK.gov changed requirements in January so now 3m flats are affected !
There are only 300 specialist inspectors who can carry out the inspections, it will take at least until 2026 to process the backlog.
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-8616399/Red-tape-nightmare-stops-millions-selling-homes.html
We have a whole new class of mortgage prisoner, scary stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My first place was a flat, victorian, in London.  I didn't know any better, the internet didn't exist as it does today as a great source of information.  I was lucky to get out with no huge bills.

However, since I would say the early 2000's, anyone buying in the UK has no excuse, as there is enough on the net to teach you about the pitfalls of leasehold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always lived in flats. Was even a mortgagee on one between 2004 and 2010 and rented flats since. Fortunately no big repair bills on the one I was a leaseholder of. If the freeholder suspect that a repair is going to cost a leaseholder more than £250 then they have to warn in advance. At least it was the case 12 years ago. 

Having been tending to the plants at my late parents' house I've been getting more enthused about gardening. Hopefully the house will sell soon and I'll look to buy a house next year with a decent deposit. :) Although that will probably be some ex council house.

Even in the mid 2000s there was some discussion about replacing leaseholds with commonholds. Whatever happened to that ? :/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, UmBongo said:

I've always lived in flats. Was even a mortgagee on one between 2004 and 2010 and rented flats since. Fortunately no big repair bills on the one I was a leaseholder of. If the freeholder suspect that a repair is going to cost a leaseholder more than £250 then they have to warn in advance. At least it was the case 12 years ago. 

Having been tending to the plants at my late parents' house I've been getting more enthused about gardening. Hopefully the house will sell soon and I'll look to buy a house next year with a decent deposit. :) Although that will probably be some ex council house.

Even in the mid 2000s there was some discussion about replacing leaseholds with commonholds. Whatever happened to that ? :/

they changed the law so that the leaseholder has the right to buy the lease from the lease owner.  But from what I remember it's fucked in terms of how the value is worked out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Flats / high density housing needs to be owned by the same large, well financed org.

They also need to spec the build.

Having a 'developer' throw up cheap builds a la T Dan, then sell it dozens of OO, some of who may or may not be in the country, is a recipe for disaster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Bandit Banzai said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54023631

 

Look at this. These people walk among us.

I will just about give someone a pass if they buy a flat in London cos it's bastard expensive. But who buys a leasehold house?

I'm not saying that this applies in some cases but I have read that the housebuilders supplied compliant solicitors who were cheap and would say things like "Yes it's leasehold but this is fairly standard so you don't need to worry about it" and the buyers would accept that advice.

If I was buying my first house and the solicitor said: "Yes there's Japanese knotweed in the garden, asbestos in the bathroom, mine workings under the house and the land is leasehold but you'll find that with every single house in this area so I really wouldn't worry about it."  I would hope that I would say "Hang on a second!" but a lot of people will just nod and sign.

However proving that solicitors were giving out misleading advice would be very hard as they sure as hell wouldn't have put it in writing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

New-build properties are often coverd by a 10 year NHBC gaurentee, owners of such a block of flats have just started a £2.2M court action against builders of their block for the cost of fire safety work - is this the first test case? :/ https://www.homesandproperty.co.uk/property-news/fire-safety-repairs-in-new-builds-hornsey-legal-action-nhbc-a140750.html

Notie that the cost of cladding isn't included, this is just for the other safety issues - a lot of which came out as a result of the Grenfell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recent news - proposals for developers to fund repairs to the newly-non-compliant buildings (after the cladding rules were changed) https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9157869/Ministers-consider-2bn-levy-developers-families-face-15bn-bill-safe-homes-Grenfell.html 

Where should the blame lie? Home owners - who had already checked everything was built to existing standards? Builders - who had built to meet existing standard? The standards body - who saw no problem using flammable coverings including wood on building exteriors? It's another case where a bit of common sense somewhere during the process would have avoided a lot of problems o.O

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Andersen said:

Recent news - proposals for developers to fund repairs to the newly-non-compliant buildings (after the cladding rules were changed) https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9157869/Ministers-consider-2bn-levy-developers-families-face-15bn-bill-safe-homes-Grenfell.html 

Where should the blame lie? Home owners - who had already checked everything was built to existing standards? Builders - who had built to meet existing standard? The standards body - who saw no problem using flammable coverings including wood on building exteriors? It's another case where a bit of common sense somewhere during the process would have avoided a lot of problems o.O

High rise .... wooden cladding....

2_KLP_MGA_240717mgaCiac_04JPG.jpg

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chewing Grass
2 hours ago, Andersen said:

Where should the blame lie? Home owners - who had already checked everything was built to existing standards? Builders - who had built to meet existing standard? The standards body - who saw no problem using flammable coverings including wood on building exteriors? It's another case where a bit of common sense somewhere during the process would have avoided a lot of problems o.O

You can apply the same principles to everything including big-pharma as most people is positions of responsibility in big companies are chancers and yes men who will sign virtually anything if there is a programme to meet and money to be made.

Common sense is bad news for the greasy pole climbers.

Everyone to some degree is corrupt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Andersen said:

Where should the blame lie? Home owners - who had already checked everything was built to existing standards? Builders - who had built to meet existing standard? The standards body - who saw no problem using flammable coverings including wood on building exteriors?

With changes of regulations don't thy normally apply to new buildings, and existing things get "grandfathered" in? That creates minimal disruption. If, on the other hand, there is a change so urgent that all existing buildings need to be re-assessed for remedial action, then I would think that the only reasonably fair thing to do would be for us, the taxpayer, to provide some support, since everyone involved up to that point has done their duty according to the law.

That opens up no end of possibility for graft, or even corrupt legislation, so it's not ideal. I guess the thing to do is to provide some taxpayer support, but make sure everyone involved feels some of the pain: the standards body, the construction firms, the freeholder and the leaseholder; spread the pain as much as possible. It's all a right mess, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, BurntBread said:

With changes of regulations don't thy normally apply to new buildings, and existing things get "grandfathered" in? That creates minimal disruption. If, on the other hand, there is a change so urgent that all existing buildings need to be re-assessed for remedial action, then I would think that the only reasonably fair thing to do would be for us, the taxpayer, to provide some support, since everyone involved up to that point has done their duty according to the law.

That opens up no end of possibility for graft, or even corrupt legislation, so it's not ideal. I guess the thing to do is to provide some taxpayer support, but make sure everyone involved feels some of the pain: the standards body, the construction firms, the freeholder and the leaseholder; spread the pain as much as possible. It's all a right mess, though.

You are forgetting what the media isn't telling you.

My guess is at least half of those affected are landlords, snaffling up the new build flats to farm the worker ants.

Do you still want your tax money to bail them out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Democorruptcy

It was debated in Parliament today.

 

Quote

 

Resolved,

That this House calls on the Government to urgently establish the extent of dangerous cladding and prioritise buildings according to risk; provide upfront funding to ensure cladding remediation can start immediately; protect leaseholders and taxpayers from the cost by pursuing those responsible for the cladding crisis; and update Parliament once a month in the form of a Written Ministerial Statement by the Secretary of State.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2021-02-01/debates/1FCA1A68-0CCF-42BF-889D-EDD2CA92165F/UnsafeCladdingProtectingTenantsAndLeaseholders

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

reformed nice guy

If they allow people to get free money for cladding, can people that have asbestos in their building get free money?

Lots of community halls across the country have to pay a fortune to get rid of the stuff for example

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Democorruptcy
17 minutes ago, Andersen said:

Fire Protection Association (who?) summary of the current choices for sorting the mess and funding the fix  https://www.thefpa.co.uk/news/government-tussle-over-cladding-funding 

£10bn to stop their house prices dropping 30% and a lot of them will be second homes and holiday lets - which could be property speculation wealthy people.

Quote

 

Mail Online reported on the ‘Cabinet tussle’ over increased funding for the cladding crisis, with ‘pressure’ said to be ‘mounting’ on Chancellor Rishi Sunak from Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick to approve a £10bn funding package for those affected. The news outlet said that ministers are ‘considering’ imposing levies on construction firms to ‘make them atone for building tens of thousands of flats and homes with unsafe cladding and insulation’.

It added that it had heard from sources of the ‘intensive efforts’ to add a ‘substantial sum’ to the developers levy, taking the fund up to £10bn, but leaseholders were concerned that the plans ‘do not go far enough and will still lumber them with huge long-term loans to pay’, which could take 30% off the value of homes.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Democorruptcy

Jenrick delivers (other taxpayer's money) to home owners and house builders (again)

Quote

 

Billions of pounds in funding to help tackle the cladding crisis has been announced - more than three and a half years after the Grenfell Tower disaster.

Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick is addressing MPs where he has confirmed leaseholders in high-rise residential buildings will face no costs for cladding remediation works.

The Government will fund the “removal and replacement” of cladding on taller residential buildings, Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick said.

In a statement on cladding, he told the Commons: “We will make further funding available to pay for the removal and replacement of unsafe cladding for all leaseholders in high-rise residential building of 18-metres and above – or above six storeys – in England.

https://www.itv.com/news/2021-02-10/government-to-announce-5-billion-grant-to-help-cladding-crisis

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Democorruptcy said:

Jenrick delivers (other taxpayer's money) to home owners and house builders (again)

Rightly so, TBH.

This is, after all, a government failure. The government have for years regulated to a quite absurd extent how much housing, of what type, may be built where. People are not allowed to simply sling their own houses up willy nilly and thereby provide for their own housing needs. Aside from the very few people that have the considerable amount of time and money required to secure planning consent for a self-build and then build it, the vast majority of UK citizens are obliged to become customers of Big Developer if they want to buy a newly built home. Those housebuilders build houses to a building code set by the government, and enforced by council building inspectors. The house purchasers are, in the main, taxpayers just like anyone else, and they have a 'legitimate expectation' (in a legal rather than practical sense) that the public employees writing and enforcing the building code should be competent.

They also have a 'legitimate expectation' IMO that once they have paid their money for a home that has been built to legal standards that they should be left alone to live in it. It would be (just about) morally justifiable for the government to turn around and say "sorry, we cocked up, turns out that your home is bloody dangerous and we would strongly advise you to pay to get the incendiary material removed from the outside of it". But that it not what they have done; they have instead insisted that homeowners should pay through the nose for their buildings to be continuously watched as a condition of being able to continue living there. This is quite simply a government sanctioned protection racket. If I lived in such a building I would flat out refuse to pay it, as given that there are apparently tens of thousands of clad buildings and yet only one has killed a notable number of people by catching fire, the risk of death in any given year is demonstrably extremely low. As someone who cycles 200 miles a week, just as an example, I reckon I'm at much higher risk of being killed in an RTA.

And yes, if the government pays for it all the costs fall to other taxpayers who haven't bought a new build house. But it seems to me that it is necessary in a functioning democracy for the citizens of a country to stand behind its government, especially when the fuckups of that government result in a waste of money. I personally have never been responsible for sending an innocent person to prison, but I nonetheless strongly believe that the government should financially compensate people who serve time in prison after a wrongful conviction, just as another example.

And finally, it is also true that if the government pays for it some of the people who will benefit will be landlords. But the fact that some of the people who will benefit from doing the right thing are undeserving does not mean that we should not do the right thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone's failure except mine.  Yet I have to pay.  Others have made money (one way or another) and/or other out of this but not me.  Yet I have to pay.  No doubt more of the same in next month's Budget.  Utter ****, a list which excludes the homeowners, except possibly those currently behaving badly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...