Written evidence submitted by Samuel Thomson [BSB 249]

I am not a construction expert. Or a fire safety expert. Or a politician. But I am a proud Brit who believes in the fundamental value of a democratically elected government which makes decisions for the well-being (in the short and longer term) of its citizens. As Winston Churchill put it in relation to the role of MPs:

The first duty of a member of Parliament is to do what he or she thinks in his or her faithful and disinterested judgement is right and necessary for the honour and safety of Great Britain. His second duty is to his constituents, of whom he is the representative but not the delegate. Burke's famous declaration on this subject is well known. It is only in the third place that his duty to party organization or programme takes rank. All these three loyalties should be observed, but there is no doubt of the order in which they stand under any healthy manifestation of democracy.

I cannot comment with any authority about the technical elements of the Draft Building Safety Bill, but I can comment on the extent to which the bill “is right and necessary for the honour and safety of Great Britain” and how well it reflects the needs of millions of constituents across the UK currently living in blocks of flats.

I bought my leasehold flat in South London 6 years ago. It was my first property, bought at age 37 after 15 years of saving. I grew up, like so many of us, dreaming about one day owning my own home and buying into the old adage that nothing is as “safe as houses”. I had a survey done on the flat, read the lease in detail, got legal advice – in short, did everything completely by the book – only to find out several years later that I am living in a building which is not considered safe, which currently has a £0 valuation and which has service charges going through the roof (example: insurance premium tripled vs. 2 years’ ago).

The building was constructed between 2006 and 2008. The developer no longer exists. We believe the building was constructed according to building regulations at the time. Even if not, it doesn’t matter as we don’t have anyone to sue. What is abundantly clear, however, is that the current proposed legislation moves the goalposts regarding fire safety regulations. This isn’t to say it’s wrong, simply that you cannot retrospectively change the rules and expert an innocent party to pay. It’s like changing the rule for offside in football in 2020, but then retrospectively applying it to all games for the past 20 years, ruling out every goal scored “incorrectly” and demanding the return of all associated titles and prize money.

The one point which is clear throughout all this process is that the innocent leaseholder should not have to pay for any remediation work. We did not write the regulations; we did not build the building; we don’t even own our flat as it’s a leasehold. Trying to justify that leaseholders should pay because essential fire safety works are “improvements” is hiding behind legal language and about as far as you can get from doing the right thing. Previous Housing Minister Brokenshire acknowledged this, and it is supported by influential figures across the political spectrum and across industry.

The Building Safety Bill, however, moves away from the clear “leaseholder should not pay” to a more nuanced “should not have to bear unaffordable costs” story. It then illustrates (table 36 – impact assessment) costs of up to £78,000 (which by the way could be much higher – there is no cap) implying that these will be deemed “affordable”. For whom? There are currently somewhere between 600,000 and 1,000,000 people “trapped” in flats like mine, with their life savings at risk, their safety a worry every day and the spectre of bankruptcy just around the corner. In addition, leaseholders are now told in the Draft Bill that they will have to pay “within 28 days” – a further nail in the coffin to any ability for us to be able to cover remediation costs.

The draft Building Safety Bill, far from protecting innocent leaseholders, instead gives us even less protection than before, favouring multi-billion pound developers who are not being held accountable in any way if they have breached historical building regulations, and multi-billion pound freeholders whose only job seems to be to take money every month and pass on any costs to leaseholders.

If it is a retrospective change in regulations that has caused this crisis then the Government needs to pay; if it is shoddy construction then developers need to be held to account. It is, and should be, that simple. There is no accountability.

We continue to have a chronic shortage of affordable housing in this country. Many first-time buyers start in a flat – and the current situation and draft Building Safety Bill risk decimating this fundamental part of the housing market. Absolutely, our buildings must be safe to live in (isn’t that a basic human right/expectation?) – but the path to making this happen is not to pass on all costs to leaseholders, with the expectation of payment within 28 days.

Financial bankruptcy for thousands of innocent leaseholders; moral bankruptcy from a government which seems to have forgotten its duty to the “honour and safety of Great Britain…and (its) constituents”.

September 2020