Written evidence submitted Aba Quartey [BSB 198]
Summary
I am responding to the question "Is the Government right to propose a new Building Safety Charge? Does the bill introduce sufficient protections to ensure that leaseholders do not face excessive charges and that their funds are properly managed?"
I am a leaseholder of a property in a block owned by Notting Hill Genesis Housing Association (NHG). I bought my property via shared ownership in 2013 and staircased to 100% ownership in 2018. I understand that there may be Grenfell type cladding or other materials that contravene fire safety on my building. We (leaseholders and tenants) are awaiting clarification of this from NHG.
I believe that the bill does not introduce sufficient protections to ensure leaseholders do not face excessive charges. Indeed the bill will allow freeholders to shift the burden of responsibility onto leaseholders which is unfair and unjustified.
I am giving evidence to object to the provision that allows freeholders to make a Building Safety Charge payable by leaseholders in a building for fire safety remediation works. Please read below for my thoughts.
My response
I have read the proposals for the new bill and the estimates of costs for ensuring the safety of buildings. These are all commendable. However I object to the proposal that freeholders may charge the costs back to leaseholders. This is completely incongruous with the government's plan to 'build, build, build' in order to provide more affordable housing for the country. I live in an area designated as a regeneration site (Colindale, London NW9) where my property and the majority of new properties built over the last 10 years are flats. I (and others like me) bought my flat to move from the instability of living in private rented accommodation. I am Londoner and yet could not afford to buy outright in my home city. I used shared ownership in good faith as it offered an opportunity to get myself onto the housing ladder.
That good faith included trust that my property was well built and safe. I was given an overview of the estimated service charge and rent, and knew I could afford it. I have managed to staircase only due to financial help from family. How can it be right or fair that an ordinary citizen like me on an average salary may now have to find £75,000 to £78,000 to pay for remedial works for a potentially unsafe building when I have acted in good faith, taking the right steps (surveys done before purchase) along the way?
I cannot afford this sum and would be left in a precarious situation. If I can't afford it I would have to try to sell. It would be impossible to sell with a liability like this on the property. I would end up in serious debt and have to turn to the state for support. This proposal will create more burden on state resources eventually.
Why does the government not put the burden on freeholders to bear this cost, especially as they are then able to take legal action against building contractors or claim on insurance? Leaseholders like me have no recourse to any other party to get back any of this huge sum. Does the government understand the financial strain and stress this provision will have on ordinary men and women of Britain who are simply trying to get some security by buying a property? If I had the funds at the time of course I would have preferred to buy a freehold property. I was and am still trapped by the current state of the housing market and many like me, similarly trapped and forced into leasehold are now suffering panic, stress and mental distress at the thought of having to find money we simply don't have. The system is already unfair (without this issue my service charge more than doubled from estimates within the first 3 years) and I am now constantly worried about money.
This clause in the new bill is flawed in placing responsibility for issues in a building on those who live there. Would the government ask residents who are tenants (not leaseholders) to contribute towards remedial costs? These are not improvements to my property. I will not gain financial advantage from them or be able to sell for a higher price. Indeed right now I could not sell if I wanted to because potential fire safety issues in a building depreciates the value of a property. Remedial works are restitution. They return us to where we should be (and were) before any concerns about safety. The bill speaks of making building owners accountable for safety issues. That accountability should stretch to the freeholder being financially responsible for rectifying issues with the building and not passing on the responsibility to those who live in it, whatever their legal status.
I do not expect, as an individual, to be bankrupted just to live in a property. The government will have failed in its promises to help people to own their own homes, at affordable prices, if they then place them into greater debt than those people budgeted for. If that's the case, I say pay me back how much I paid for this flat and I will give it back, and return to the private rented accommodation sector. Either way I lose.
I hope the committee has the good sense to put a stop to this before you alienate a huge swathe of the population.