Written evidence submitted by Mr P Ross [BSB 380]
Background:
- I am a resident/owner in a block in London, built only in 2015, purchased through a shared ownership scheme, which is over 18m in height.
- We are currently awaiting completion of an EWS1 form but this has taken a number of months, with poor (bordering on inept) communication from the managing agent Rendall and Rittner. However, we are aware from the panning application that the cladding used (and insulation used) is very likely unfit for our building because of its height.
- I find myself in a situation where I am effectively trapped in the property while we await the survey results, and, ultimately, could well be trapped for a further couple of years in the event that our cladding needs replacing
- In the paragraph above I define trapped as meaning that I cannot sell my property, now can I purchase a further share as lender are unwilling to lend without a clean EWS1 form. The housing association are preventing me from buying a further share at a valuation that reflects the current cladding uncertainty, and/or at a valuation which would reflect a dangerous cladding situation.
My issue(s) with the proposed bill: it is unfair and sets a worrying precedent.
- As a tenant (shared ownership or otherwise) of a building that is only 5 years old, I find it just unfathomable that I could be met with a bill for tens of thousands of pounds because of either i) shortcomings in the development process, or ii) amendments to government guidelines that, surely, in the interests of fairness, should see the costs borne by the owner of the building. I cannot see that it is fair for the residents for have to pay to improve the something as essential and fundament as the building’s safety.
- In the Bill’s Impact Assessment (Cost/Benefit Analysis paper), the menu of potential costs (and the wider document) offered no reasoning or justification for how leaseholders (social housing or otherwise) are supposed to be able to afford these cladding payments that could in many cases leave homeowners homeless and bankrupt. It is conspicuous by omission that these individual situations – of which there are likely be hundreds, if not thousands – have not even been noted, let alone addressed with any meaning, in what is supposed to be an assessment of the benefits and costs of the proposed legislation. The potential (and likely) financial and health burden on leaseholders is cynically glossed over in this document with alarming indifference.
- In my specific situation, as the first generation in my family to attend university, I moved to London from the north-east of England, and had felt fortunate enough to own a property before the age of 30, by purchasing a 25% share through the shared ownership social housing scheme. I feels troublingly ironic that someone in my position, keen on being socially mobile as a product of a working class upbringing (and unable to afford a freehold property, or even a fully owned leasehold property) should have to pay for improvements to a building owned by an offshore landlord (Adriatic Land 9) who doesn’t even pay tax in this country (AL9 is domiciled in the Channel Islands and makes an accounting loss). If I am fortunate enough to save up enough before any cladding bill is served, any savings that I do have I expect will be wiped out.
- Further to the above point: Adriatic Land is owned by investment fund Long Harbour who, in this situation, have effectively acquired assets that need to be impaired (ie insufficiently safe cladding). To then have someone else – the leaseholders – be forced to pay to make good the impaired asset on behalf of the asset owner would be a completely unique situation. I can think of no other arrangement where a third party would pay to make good an asset that an owner/buyer has purchased without doing its own due diligence. It also cannot be said to be fair that individual leaseholders should be expect to perform their own diligence on cladding when compared to the vast resources and expertise of the asset/building owners.