NEWS Leaseholders told to pay for cladding replacement


THE RESIDENTS of the Citiscape building in Croydon have been ruled against in a tribunal, which found that they are ‘responsible for making [the] building safe’. Residents were told recently


they would have to pay £31,300 per flat to fund cladding removal and replacement. The building in London is owned by Proxima GR Properties, which stated it is ‘not its responsibility’ to pay for the removal and replacement of cladding,which was found to have failed the government’s fire safety tests undertaken after the Grenfell Tower fire. The total bill of £2m works out at


£31,300 per flat, and Proxima GR Properties ‘denied responsibility’ in paying towards the work, stating that the recladding will only take place ‘once full funds are in place’. Last October, residents received letters stating they would have to pay £5,000 to £6,000 per flat to replace cladding. Six months ago, the government


told the company to remove the cladding, while Sajid Javid, the Housing, Communities and Local Government Secretary, said that the landlord ‘was responsible for ensuring residents’ safety’. However, Proxima ‘insisted that it is not obliged to cover the costs’, warning leaseholders that the bill ‘will increase’ if not paid. Residents responded that the amount ‘was more than they earned in a year and that they feared for their safety’, with one group releasing a statement in which they said they had been ‘left terrified by what could happen in the event of a fire’. The site has fire wardens patrolling ‘constantly’ at a cost of around £4,000 per week, another cost the company is ‘planning to pass on to leaseholders’. The most recent development had been that removal would not begin ‘until £2m in costs are paid, either by residents or the government’. FirstPort, which manages the development, stated that the total bill is over


10 MAY 2018 www.frmjournal.com


[the] certification process’, added Mr Andrew, referring to the fact that many buildings were signed off by council building inspectors as compliant with regulations. He also said that leaseholders


£132,000, and had originally estimated cladding removal would cost under £500,000 before increasing it up to £2m, with work not set to begin until September ‘at the earliest’ due to the revision. The Guardian reported that leaseholders will have to pay as ‘they, rather than the management company, were obliged to cover the costs’. Leaseholders had argued that replacing cladding ‘should not be added to their service charge’ because this was ‘not a matter of disrepair’ as it ‘remains as designed and constructed’ and did not fall under ‘periodical expenditure’. Tribunal chairman Angus


Andrew ruled that 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’. He did suggest however that residents ‘may have claims against other parties involved’, noting that the manufacturer of the building’s cladding could be included ‘if warranties were given as to its suitability’. Barratt Homes, which built the


block in 2001, could also have claims made against it by tenants ‘if they were negligent as to the selection and installation of the cladding’. Leaseholders can also mount legal challenges against Croydon ‘if there were errors in


could challenge the government ‘if the building regulations were not fit for purpose’, but no claims could ‘reasonably commence’ until the public inquiry into the Grenfell Tower fire was completed. As such, Citiscape tenants could ‘find themselves mired in litigation for many years, during which time their flats would be effectively unsaleable’. A First Port spokesperson


commented: ‘We brought this case before the tribunal not in conflict with residents, but to receive an independent judgment on the most appropriate way to ensure their safety in the long term. As the property manager, we will continue to support everyone at Citiscape and work to minimise the costs of recladding, while putting residents’ safety first at all times. We will continue to work with all parties to provide further assistance to residents, but we must begin these essential safety works.’ Steve Reed, MP for Croydon


North, added: ‘The tribunal’s decision is the first time a judicial body has opened the door to a legal challenge to the government over the flawed fire safety rules that allowed flammable cladding to go up on Grenfell and hundreds of other blocks across the country. ‘The government has


consistently claimed the flammable cladding on Grenfell did not comply with the rules, but [recently] we saw a certificate authorising a similar material that was signed by the government’s chief advisor on the fire safety of buildings. ‘It is crystal clear [that] the


government was responsible for allowing this cladding to go up so the government must accept responsibility for taking it down.’


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60