Bankrupted by Cladding?

[Harley]

5 hours ago, Rave said:

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.

No.  There are other recourses available instead of running to my bank account.  And no money without demonstrable serious reform and jail time.  And how's the enquiry going?  It's an enquiry so deliberately nowhere, as usual.  Rinse and repeat, guaranteed.

[Democorruptcy]

5 hours ago, Rave said:

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.

I don't agree that people who have made poor investment decisions should be bailed out by other taxpayers. I don't see why wealthy landlords and second home owners speculating on property should have their gamble refunded. Everything you have said could apply to someone who has invested in shares in a company that has nothing to do with property, they don't get their money back.

[Harley]

3 hours ago, Democorruptcy said:

I don't agree that people who have made poor investment decisions should be bailed out by other taxpayers. I don't see why wealthy landlords and second home owners speculating on property should have their gamble refunded. Everything you have said could apply to someone who has invested in shares in a company that has nothing to do with property, they don't get their money back.

Today's campaign reminds me of the group arguing for a taxpayer bailout because the were "given" teaser loans they could not afford, for whatever reason, who now can't afford the inevitable move to a slightly higher rate.  These cladding guys have a far better case but not with the taxpayer and extensive reform (and this saga goes very deep and wide) and maybe jail needed at the same time.  To me, these PR pushes turn me off but fair enough, except for the polos - scr*w them.

[Rave]

4 hours ago, Democorruptcy said:

I don't agree that people who have made poor investment decisions should be bailed out by other taxpayers. I don't see why wealthy landlords and second home owners speculating on property should have their gamble refunded.

I don't agree with that either. That's not what this is. After the cladding is fixed those people still own shitty flats that they paid too much for and which are likely to be at the forefront of the collapse in property values at the point when the government finally runs out of money or inclination to kick the property ponzi can down the road.

The fact remains that they bought the homes in good faith, and they were legal when they bought them, as certified by the government themselves at considerable expense. The government cannot then turn around and say actually no sorry, you're not allowed to live here any more unless you pay through the nose. That is effectively expropriation without compensation, proper banana republic shit.

 

28 minutes ago, Harley said:

Today's campaign reminds me of the group arguing for a taxpayer bailout because the were "given" teaser loans they could not afford, for whatever reason, who now can't afford the inevitable move to a slightly higher rate. 

Then you have a very poor level of ability to determine moral equivalence. Any reasonable person can predict that interest rates will rise at the end of an advertised teaser rate, whereas it is clearly not reasonable to expect that the government will effectively turf you out of a house that they themselves have certified as safe at a moment's notice

[Democorruptcy]

1 minute ago, Rave said:

I don't agree with that either. That's not what this is. After the cladding is fixed those people still own shitty flats that they paid too much for and which are likely to be at the forefront of the collapse in property values at the point when the government finally runs out of money or inclination to kick the property ponzi can down the road.

The fact remains that they bought the homes in good faith, and they were legal when they bought them, as certified by the government themselves at considerable expense. The government cannot then turn around and say actually no sorry, you're not allowed to live here any more unless you pay through the nose. That is effectively expropriation without compensation, proper banana republic shit.

Taxpayer's money being used for cladding is a separate issue to what you think may or may not happen to the property market as a whole.

Re your  'good faith'. I bought some shares in a marvellous company called Centrica who own the superb British Gas. I bought them in 'good faith' based on current regulations and then the governbankment brought in new regulations and introduced an energy price cap. The value of my 'good faith' investment fell in value. When am I getting the bailout cheque? If not why not? My investment was based on the regulations at the time.

If a property isn't a person's main residence they shouldn't get anything. They haven't bought a shelter to live in, they are speculating on property.

It's a bit pointless going on about it because the governbankment's decision isn't really to help owners, landlords, etc it's to help themselves. They have tens of billions of liabilities in 20% or 40% Help to Buys. If property prices go down generally it would cost them more. Hence another prop here. On Peston last night Jenrick said it wasn't right that these property values might go down 30%.

[Wight Flight]

They are doing a good job on the media of getting crying flat owners (whilst ignoring the BTL bunch)

Most seem to have bought for about £250k 10 years ago, seen the value soar to £500k and are now moaning that their profit has been wiped out.

Seems logical to me for .gov to pay to fix the property, but the owner has to pay it back when they sell if they sell for a profit.

Assuming the cost is about £50k, the owner would still be quids in and poor suckers like me haven't had to pay for it.

[Harley]

8 hours ago, Rave said:

Then you have a very poor level of ability to determine moral equivalence.

Moral equivalence you say?  Yours was the sneaky edit of what I said.

[Rave]

8 hours ago, Democorruptcy said:

Taxpayer's money being used for cladding is a separate issue to what you think may or may not happen to the property market as a whole.

I know, that's what I've just said?

8 hours ago, Democorruptcy said:

Re your  'good faith'. I bought some shares in a marvellous company called Centrica who own the superb British Gas. I bought them in 'good faith' based on current regulations and then the governbankment brought in new regulations and introduced an energy price cap. The value of my 'good faith' investment fell in value. When am I getting the bailout cheque? If not why not? My investment was based on the regulations at the time.

Because I don't like to just post completely unresearched bollocks I actually googled the legal term I thought I was referring to to make sure that there was some basis to what I was saying. I thought that the term was 'reasonable expectation', but no.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimate_expectation

In the case of the share that must not be named, it comes down to whether the government had given an assurance that they would not introduce a price cap before you purchased the shares. If they did, then you'd have every right to ask for a judicial review of the legality of it. If they didn't, then it is in fact a fairly reasonable expectation that the government might well interfere in the energy market in some way detrimental to shareholders' interests- it's not actually all that long since Gordon Brown's 'windfall tax', which any reasonably diligent investor ought to be aware of.

Whereas to my knowledge the government has not, in living memory at least, demanded huge windfall sums from people for the privilege of allowing them to continue living in their own homes. It is quite literally unprecedented as far as I know.

In any case, you have merely suffered a loss in the value of your shares. You have not been effectively banned from owning them or selling them on, unlike the people who 'own' homes in affected buildings.

9 hours ago, Democorruptcy said:

If a property isn't a person's main residence they shouldn't get anything. They haven't bought a shelter to live in, they are speculating on property.

OK, but when you bought energy company shares you were speculating on future energy prices. So what?

The buildings are substandard, they need to be made safe. The responsibility for them having been built to unsafe standards falls ultimately to the government, who have involved themselves, unnecessarily in my view and presumably that of most ex-HPCers, in regulating how, where, and it what size and quantity buildings may be constructed. The responsibility to fix the building therefore also falls to government, and whether the individual sub-units in any given building are owned by speculators or owner occupiers is irrelevant.

9 hours ago, Democorruptcy said:

It's a bit pointless going on about it because the governbankment's decision isn't really to help owners, landlords, etc it's to help themselves. They have tens of billions of liabilities in 20% or 40% Help to Buys. If property prices go down generally it would cost them more. Hence another prop here. On Peston last night Jenrick said it wasn't right that these property values might go down 30%.

Pretty much all the government's revenues come from taxpayers in one way or another. If they are acting in 'their own interest' then they are acting in the taxpayer's interest.

[Rave]

1 hour ago, Harley said:

Moral equivalence you say?  Yours was the sneaky edit of what I said.

My edit was merely to highlight the pertinent part that I was taking issue with; it was not an attempt to misrepresent what you were saying. But since you object I will be glad to quote and then reply to the rest, which I might have done earlier anyway had I not been preparing to go to work:

 

10 hours ago, Harley said:

These cladding guys have a far better case but not with the taxpayer

 

They have a case against the government who wrote the regulations to which their buildings were constructed. And as I've just said in my reply above, the government is funded by the taxpayer, who ultimately backstops the consequences of shit government. There is no meaningful way in which a distinction between government and taxpayer can be made when it comes to liability.

 

10 hours ago, Harley said:

and extensive reform (and this saga goes very deep and wide) and maybe jail needed at the same time.  To me, these PR pushes turn me off but fair enough, except for the polos - scr*w them.

No offence intended here but you appear to have typed this in something of a hurry and it is slightly unclear what you are trying to say. So I will reply to what I think you mean while expressly acknowledging beforehand that I may have misinterpreted, and that I will be glad of clarification if so- this is not an attempt to straw man you.

So- what I think you mean is that some people ought to face legal consequences for the fuck up?

If so, sure, I don't disagree. If enough legally qualified people think that writing building regs to expressly allow buildings to be clad in material that goes up like dry kindling in the case of a fire constitutes criminal negligence, or misconduct in public office, or whatever, then by all means put those people in front of a jury and roll the dice (which is all any trial really is, as I learned from my own unfortunate jury service experience). You might win, you might not.

But that doesn't solve the problem of the shitty buildings that need fixing. If I were to guess I would say that none of the people responsible will have even a million pounds in assets to seize, let alone the billions that will be required. They were acting on behalf of the UK Government, and so the buck stops with them, and by extension as I've already said, the taxpayer.

When BAE or whatever company get fined half a billion quid for corruption, the executives involved might do some jail time but ultimately the cost of the fine falls to the shareholders of the company even though the vast majority will have had no part in the bribery. Ultimately taxpayers are the equivalent of shareholders in the UK Govt. As a libertarian I would very much prefer it if the government were to run up far fewer liabilities on my behalf, but it is what it is.

[Andersen]

There is no evidence to show that the news below is in any way related to the recent descision to use taxpay funds to rectify buildings with defective cladding. Full disclosure: I'm sceptical when "coincidence" is one of the obvious explanations...

 

 

[sarahbell]

I saw something yesterday about sprinkler systems in Manchester tower blocks failing before they've officially gone live. Can't find it now. 

[Wight Flight]

7 hours ago, Andersen said:

There is no evidence to show that the news below is in any way related to the recent descision to use taxpay funds to rectify buildings with defective cladding. Full disclosure: I'm sceptical when "coincidence" is one of the obvious explanations...

 

 

I think they do that every year no matter what.