Cladding scandal: 'Too many people have prioritised profit over human beings'

Those caught at the sharp end of the cladding scandal include Maxine Burton, a leaseholder from Leeds who said she is still waiting for remediation work to be carried out on her flat.

“The cladding scandal has fundamentally and irreversibly changed my view of the fairness of living in this country and has highlighted the ease with which so many people who have been involved have been able to prioritise profit over human beings,’’ she said.

“Most days feels like a heavy weight hanging over me, impeding me from thinking about the future with any real hope of what it may look like. I cling to the hope that, one day, I will feel the relief of not having to think about this any more and move on with my life.”

MPs have expressed scepticism about Government plans to remove dangerous cladding from buildings and warned of the potential risk remediation costs could pose to new housing targets. The official strategy to deal with the building safety fallout eight years on from the Grenfell Tower fire “lacks ambition”, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) said.

MPs concluded that “residents and taxpayers still face unacceptable levels of uncertainty and lack of action in resolving the cladding crisis”. Labour unveiled its Remediation Acceleration Plan last year, pledging that, by the end of 2029, all buildings more than 59ft (18m) tall with unsafe cladding that are on a Government scheme will have been remediated. For buildings over 11 metres with unsafe cladding, within the same timeframe those will either have been remediated, have a date for completion, or the landlords will be liable for severe penalties.

Giles Grover, from the End Our Cladding Scandal, who became an activist after the property for which he is a leaseholder was found to contain cladding similar to that used on Grenfell Tower, said a resolution to the scandal would come about from consistency, central control and making industry pay.

In particular, there needs to be consistency of risk assessment so people know their building is safe inside and out, Mr Grover added.

End our Cladding Scandal believes definitive, holistic and risk-based guidance is essential for buildings of all heights and for both external and internal defects, so that safety assessments and the remediation required will be clear and consistent and accepted by all stakeholders.

Mr Grover told The Yorkshire Post that years of Government de-regulation had helped to create this scandal and, instead of a subjective assessment, there was a need for an objective safety scoring matrix based on risk metrics.

End our Cladding Scandal believes the pace of making homes safe must significantly accelerate. The Government, all construction industry sectors and building owners must all be held to account to ensure a swift solution, the group believes.

Mr Grover said: “Leaseholders often have to go to freeholders and multiple other agencies to get action.

“We need a centrally led approach and independent oversight instead of the piecemeal system we have today.

“Leaseholders have been told they are innocent and the Government says they will make industry pay through a building safety levy. Currently only developers contribute to this levy but more sectors should contribute because they are also responsible for the scandal.

“We need to take the weight off leaseholders’ shoulders. The Government has recognised that deregulation caused this scandal, so why are we as leaseholders having to sort out the consequences individually?

“If all leaseholders were protected, imagine the relief and certainty that would give to the housing market.”

End our Cladding Scandal believes the Responsible Actors Scheme, which is developer self-remediation, and the Cladding Safety Scheme should be extended to cover buildings under 11 metres.

“All work recommended by risk assessments must be equally eligible for funding, otherwise we face the prospect that some homes will never be made safe, sellable or insurable. If only a small number of buildings under 11 metres need remediation, it is illogical to withhold funding as this has a ripple effect on all buildings of this height,’’ Mr Grover added.

The group also believes all buildings should qualify for the leaseholder protections, regardless of the building height or whether it is leaseholder-owned or enfranchised. The protections place a cap on the maximum cost payable and also ensure only one tenth can be charged in a single year.

All leaseholders should qualify for the leaseholder protections, regardless of the number of properties owned, according to End our Cladding Scandal.

“If the Government maintains that blameless leaseholders of “substantial means” should pay for historic defects, it should clearly set out the financial assessment it will use to determine this and ensure forcing innocent victims of this crisis to pay does not hold up work as it has for the three years since the law changed.”

Mr Grover said: “If all leaseholders are victims, why did the previous Government decide that some leaseholders are more innocent than others?

“A statement by a representative of RICS (Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors) showed clearly that if you differentiate between leaseholders in a building that impacts the pace of remediation.”

End our Cladding Scandal also believes that the Government must address financial losses not covered by the current leaseholder protections and ensure that leaseholders are not further penalised by an onerous mortgage lending process and exorbitant building insurance premiums.

Mr Grover added: “The Government has been focusing on height to assess risk but the reality is that the risks caused by unsafe cladding are due to a number of factors.”

For example a building with a strip of cladding similar to Grenfell which is over 19m tall will get access to Government funding for remediation, even if it is at the top of the building, which would mean fire can’t spread further upwards.

However, a low-rise building wrapped in cladding similar to that found at Grenfell Tower will not gain Government funding, despite the obvious fire risk.

Mr Grover said: “The key to all this is more certainty of assessment, independent oversight and a centrally controlled approach.

“Regardless of the height or defect, all leaseholders must be protected. There are too many uncertainties and differing approaches to risk which are causing lengthy disputes with no end in sight.”

Maggie Brodie of the Non Qualifying Leaseholders Group said thousands of leaseholders are still struggling and trapped in unsafe buildings.

Ms Brodie is a leading member of a group which campaigns for leaseholders who are excluded from Leaseholder Protection under the Building Safety Act. She said the range of people impacted includes leaseholders, many of whom are pensioners, who purchased properties to rent to tenants as part of their retirement planning.

Ms Brodie said: “We need Government to get a grip on this, fix the buildings, including both cladding and non cladding defects, and seek redress from those responsible, not the innocent leaseholders.”

A Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government spokesperson said: “This Government is taking decisive action through the Remediation Acceleration Plan to address the building safety crisis quickly, so that people can feel safe in their homes as soon as possible.

“We continue to work closely with industry, local authorities, and residents to accelerate remediation efforts while ensuring those responsible for unsafe buildings cover the costs.”

The spokesman said the Government’s Remediation Acceleration Plan, announced in December, sets out key measures and funding to fix buildings faster, identify remaining buildings still at risk and ensure that residents are supported through the remediation process and the plan’s targets provide much greater certainty about when cladding remediation will be resolved.

“The Government has made it clear that those responsible must pay, not leaseholders,’’ the spokesman added. “The Government has announced its intention to launch the Building Safety Levy in Autumn 2026 as part of a package to ensure the burden of paying for fixing historical building safety defects do not fall on leaseholders or further burden taxpayers. The levy is projected to raise approximately £3.4 billion over the next decade.”

More than 50 developers have signed the developer remediation contract, committing to fix unsafe buildings that they developed or refurbished, the spokesman added.

The Building Safety Act ensures that those who built defective buildings take responsibility for remedying them, that the industry contributes to fixing the problem, and that certain leaseholders are protected in law from the costs of remedying certain historical safety defects.

The leaseholder protections came into force on 28 June 2022, with new financial protections for certain leaseholders in relevant buildings in respect of relevant historical safety defects, the spokesman said.

The spokesman added: “The risk to life from historic fire safety defects is lower in buildings under 11m, which means that building safety related remediation works are required in a very small number of buildings under 11m. The Government have to date, only identified a small number of under 11m buildings where cladding remediation work is required. In the vast majority of cases, no or limited remediation is needed, or lower-cost mitigations have been found to be a more appropriate way to make a low-rise building safer.

“In the rare cases where cladding remediation work is required in buildings under 11m, the department has engaged the relevant developers and had constructive conversations about them funding these works so that leaseholders do not foot the bill. Additionally, developers and/or freeholders can, where appropriate, consider bringing claims utilising redress measures to recover funds to pay for the remediation works.

“It is unacceptable that construction product manufacturers have not yet made a fair contribution to fixing the building safety crisis. We want to ensure those impacted by manufacturer failings, for example leaseholders and building owners, have access to redress routes for past and any future failings. We are reviewing current redress routes to ensure they support recovery of costs from construction product manufacturers where appropriate. If we identify any gaps or issues, we will consider the best way to address this, including whether the government should intervene.

The spokesman added: “The Construction Products Green Paper reaffirms government’s commitment for system wide reform of the construction products regime. It sets out detailed proposals to meet our ambition for safe products, safely used.”