Citiscape, on the junction of Frith and Drummon Roads: the cladding is the similar to that used at Grenfell Tower
Residents in a town centre tower block could face financial ruin after a tribunal ruled today that they must meet the costs of replacing the Grenfell-style flammable cladding that encompasses their homes.
The leaseholders in the 95-apartment Citiscape complex on Drummond Road have been ordered to pay the bills to make their building safe, after a tribunal ruled that they, rather than the management company, were obliged to cover the costs of making the property safe.
The local MP, Steve Reed OBE, called on the government to step in.
“The government allowed that cladding to go up,” Reed said. “The government must take responsibility for taking that cladding down.
“The government must stop abandoning leaseholders to their fate. The government must pay for this work to be done.”
Citiscape’s cladding is similar to that which is widely regarded as having contributed to the high death toll in the Grenfell Tower fire in Kensington last summer, when 72 people died. Hundreds more lost their homes and possessions, and many still await re-housing.
Grenfell Tower was a council-managed residential block. Citiscape is a privately run set of apartments, where two-bed flats until recently sold for £350,000.
Because of the mounting costs of monitoring the building with 24/7 fire watches, and the legal costs involved, the leaseholders fear that their total bill to replace the cladding could now amount to more than £2million.
“It’s a let-down,” Alex Blanc, who owns a two-bedroom flat in Citiscape, said of today’s tribunal ruling.
“This is something we are not responsible for and now we are having to pay for it.”
The building is owned by the family trust of the multi-millionaire property mogul Vincent Tchenguiz, but the case was brought by FirstPort Property Services property management company, seeking clarification on who should pay.
Vincent Tchenguiz: worth a few bob
As far as Reed is concerned, the government should be picking up the bills.
“The government has consistently claimed the flammable cladding on Grenfell did not comply with the rules, but last week we saw a certificate authorising a similar material that was signed by the government’s chief advisor on the fire safety of buildings,” Reed said.
“It is crystal clear the government was responsible for allowing this cladding to go up so the government must accept responsibility for taking it down.” Good luck with that…
The Guardian newspaper is reporting tonight that the chairman of the London residential property tribunal, Angus Andrew, has ruled that the leaseholders should pay because “if the manager is obliged to do work … the tenants are obliged to contribute to the cost although they remain entitled to dispute the reasonableness of the cost”.
Steve Reed OBE: decision gives chance to challenge government
But Andrew has suggested residents may have claims against other parties involved, including the government. Andrew listed the cladding manufacturer, “if warranties were given as to its suitability”, and Barratt Homes, which built the blocks in 2001, “if they were negligent as to the selection and installation of the cladding”.
The tribunal chairman also suggested that leaseholders could mount legal challenges against Croydon Council “if there were errors in certification process”. Many tower blocks, including Grenfell, were signed off by building inspectors as being compliant with building regulations.
Andrew also said leaseholders could challenge central government “if the building regulations were not fit for purpose”.
But he added that no claims could reasonably commence until the public inquiry into the causes of the Grenfell fire had reported, which is unlikely to be until 2019.
He warned that tenants could “find themselves mired in litigation for many years, during which time their flats would be effectively unsaleable”.
The on-going uncertainty, over the safety of their homes and the possible bills they face to put things right, certainly haunts the residents of Citiscape.
Soon after the Grenfell Tower fire last summer, when Citiscape was discovered to have been encased in similar cladding, it was estimated that the cost of replacing the combustible panelling was about £500,000. Estimates have since risen to £2.4million.
Leaseholders had insisted that replacing the cladding should not be added to their service charge as it was not a matter of disrepair “because the cladding remains as designed and constructed”, and it did not fall under “periodical expenditure”.
One resident, Richard Low-Foon, told the tribunal he needed “a miracle” to fund the works as his father was ill and could not sell his flat because of the risk the building carried for any future investor.
“He is in hospital because of all this. It got too much for him,” he said.
Citiscape residents were told at the tribunal that no work will begin to remove their building’s cladding until the full amount for the costs – with each resident facing bills of £31,000 – has been paid into the management firm’s bank.
Inside Croydon is a member of the Independent Community News Network- Inside Croydon is the borough’s only independent news source, and still based in the heart of Croydon
- 1.4 MILLION PAGE VIEWS IN 2017
- ROTTEN BOROUGH AWARDS 2017: Inside Croydon was source for two award-winning nominations in Private Eye magazine’s annual celebration of civic cock-ups
- If you have a news story about life in or around Croydon, a residents’ or business association or a local event to publicise, please email us with full details at inside.croydon@btinternet.com
The problem is that there are so many organisations involved who might eventually be held responsible that it will take a long time to sort out. The Government should promptly pay for the work to be done to this and similar blocks and if possible take over the rights of the leaseholders to sue any organisation which is eventually found to be liable.
Understand that the Property Management company is First Port, who like to have their cut on any contract work. Therefore not surprised that costs have apparently escalated on a nice big project like this at Citiscape. I would advise that residents opt to ‘Self Manage’ this project to reduce the cost down to near the original estimate.
Assuming that the cladding is correctly assessed as unsafe then I cannot envisage that the residents can ultimately be responsible. The problem, as David White has said, is that it will take a long time to sort out. If the cladding system complied with regulations, yet is now viewed as unsafe, then I would think the Government has prime responsibility with, posssibly, the designers/specifiers as adherance to codes/regulations is only a partial defence. If it didn’t comply with regulations then I’d be looking at the specifier, manufacturer, testing labs, supervisor, builder, and Building Control. The bottom line is that the legal profession will be earning large fees to sort this out and each affected bulding is likely to be different.
These cases will go round and round but will ultimately end up with Government because the regulations, guidance and codes that governed the selection of materials were (1) fragmented (2) contradictory (3) incomplete (4) not comprehensive (5) unclear and therefore were not fit for purpose.
Government will point the finger but ultimately responsibility rests with them.
Pingback: ‘We are not the enemy’: New Capital Quay fire risk residents appeal to Greenwich Council – 853