Flat owners are facing significant financial burdens for fire safety remediation work due to their buildings not meeting the height requirements for government funding introduced in response to the Grenfell Tower fire.

Following the 2017 tragedy that claimed 72 lives, the previous government enacted the Building Safety Act. However, this legislation only applies to buildings over 11 metres (36 feet) or five storeys high.

Legal experts argue that the law was "rushed," while the government maintains that it covers the majority of leaseholders and that ongoing reviews of the legislation will continue.

The Financial Burden on Leaseholders

Paramedic Tom DeRonde has been presented with a £65,000 bill for his share of fire safety works on his three-storey building, leaving him facing financial ruin.

"I had to take a month off work with stress. There's not been a day when I've not thought about cladding," he told the BBC.

According to the End Our Cladding Scandal campaign, there are an estimated 1.3 million leasehold flats in low-rise buildings under 11 metres high across England.

Tom purchased his flat in Luton in 2018 using savings from his military service. Upon receiving the unexpected bill, he was "absolutely shocked."

His landlord's invoice reflects his legal responsibility for a share of the cost to make the building fireproof. "I thought it was a typo to be honest," he said.

Upon learning that the building's height rendered him a "non-qualifying leaseholder," Tom realised he was liable for the fire safety costs.

"The government says for buildings under 11m, the risk can be mitigated by other means, like using fire alarms and sprinkler systems but in my case, that's not true," explained Tom.

"I've had two fire assessments both saying the cladding is dangerous and needs to be removed, and the price, which they also said would be lower for smaller buildings, is extortionate. I can't pay," he added.

After raising concerns with the building's owners, Tom anticipates a reduction in his bill but is still uncertain about the final amount.

Hoping to move into a family home, Tom's plans have been put on hold. "It's ruining my life and I'm facing bankruptcy," he said.

Legislative Gaps Leave Leaseholders Exposed

The Department for Housing told the BBC that owners of buildings under 11m should not pass on the costs of fixing historical safety defects to leaseholders. However, in cases where developers are no longer in business or landlords cannot afford the remediation, leaseholders remain financially responsible.

Liz Ramsden, a leasehold property specialist at Knights, believes the Building Safety Act was implemented too hastily.

"The intention was that no leaseholder would have to pay but in reality, we are finding a lot of leaseholders are having to pay huge sums of money.

"There was very little consultation and because of that we have these gaps in the legislation and people are falling through," she said.

Even leaseholders in buildings above 11m are not fully protected under the law. Homeowners with Islamic mortgages or more than three properties are also excluded from certain protections.

Martin Batty, who has an Islamic mortgage, discovered this issue when attempting to sell his one-bedroom flat.

His solicitor informed him that Islamic home purchase plans, which comply with Sharia law by avoiding interest payments, fall outside the scope of the Building Safety Act.

"It feels really unfair. I feel like I'm being discriminated against," he said.

"To find out that I'm a non-qualifying leaseholder just because I've got an Islamic home purchase plan is a huge kick in the teeth. It's really upsetting and is a huge let down."

The government told the BBC that interest-free loans secured against properties under Islamic finance agreements were rare. However, Martin claims that mortgage providers refuse to lend against his property and solicitors will not provide advice on non-qualifying leases, leaving him unable to sell.

Impact on Buy-to-Let Landlords

Suzy Spilling and her husband Colin own four rental properties, including two flats in Salford that are "mortgaged to the hilt." Cladding on these properties has been deemed unsafe, and while the government will fund its removal, the couple must contribute towards remediation costs as they own more than three properties, rendering them "non-qualifying leaseholders."

"Everything we have planned for would be out the window," said Suzy. "How were we going to raise the funds needed? We could be on the hook for £100,000 for each of our two apartments."

The End Our Cladding Scandal campaign estimates there are 385,000 flats in England owned by non-qualifying leaseholders like Suzy and Colin.

Despite returning to work to save money, Suzy acknowledges that covering the required amount will be nearly impossible. "Our lives are on hold. We don't know when it's ever going to end."

Calls for Urgent Review

Liz Ramsden highlighted the significant impact of the legislation, noting: "There's been a 40% drop in leasehold transactions because of problems with the act. It urgently needs to be looked at so we can make it work better for everybody."

A government spokesperson stated that the Building Safety Act is under review, with considerations being made for potential amendments to offer greater protection from remediation costs.

View the Source.

Our eNews provides regular insight into industry trends, news headlines, and product and service information. For more articles like this Subscribe to our enews.