Written evidence submitted by Rogers [BSB 361]

Introduction

I submit this evidence as an individual leaseholder in a >18m block of flats built in 2013.

A recent survey revealed that the external walls and balconies need significant remediation to ensure they comply with MHCLG’s “Advice for Building Owners of Multi-storey, Multi-occupied Residential Buildings”, published in January 2020.

The building also has missing fire breaks/cavity barriers, which means it breached regulations at the time and should never have passed building control.

Response to the Committee’s questions

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 welcome the separation of the Building Safety Charge from regular service charges. However, there are serious issues with the proposals as they stand. The draft Bill:

• Fails to distinguish between the costs of a) future measures to make buildings safe, and b) remediating historic safety defects from the time of construction. Liability for b) should clearly lie with those responsible for these defects (e.g. developers) – not innocent leaseholders who played no part in them and bought their homes in good faith. Indeed, the Government has previously stated that such costs should not fall to leaseholders, so the draft Bill is at total odds with this stance.

• Does not make clear that leaseholders must not be held financially responsible for remedial work needed due the retrospective amendment or introduction of Government safety standards since the time of build. Historically weak building regulations are not our fault, so we should not be held liable for any costs related to these either.

• Contains no clear mechanisms to prevent the passing of excessive charges on to leaseholders. Table 36 of the Impact Assessment implies costs could reach or even exceed £78,000 per leaseholder. Such extortionate sums will be completely unaffordable for most, not to mention entirely unjust given my previous two points. Many of us will simply be made bankrupt.

• States that leaseholders must pay charges within 28 days. If we fail to do so, because we simply cannot afford the huge sums demanded, we face lease forfeiture and – ultimately – losing our homes. This is clearly absurd and unfair.

I therefore make the following recommendations for the Building Safety Charge:

• Explicitly exclude the costs of fixing historic safety defects, and instead introduce a developer levy to make those responsible pay

• Explicitly exclude the costs of any necessary remediation work arising from retrospective changes to Government building standards and regulations

• Introduce additional mechanisms to shield leaseholders from unjust, excessive and potentially unlimited charges

• Remove the arbitrary 28-day timescale for the payment of charges

September 2020