Liability of building cladding replacement

[Rojibo]

Hi There, apologies if this has been asked before but I tried the search engine and didn’t find anything.

I live in a leasehold flat, and we’ve been informed that the cladding needs replacing, at least some of it, it’s not that it’s a death trap, it’s just of a substandard spec. I’m not too worried about this as there are sprinklers in every flat, anyway.

The management company have sent us letters stating that we (the leaseholders) are responsible for the costs of replacing the cladding, and all we know at the moment is that the costs are going to be greater than £250.

Surely I would have thought that the company who installed the cladding in the first place would be liable for the costs, or that it would be covered by an insurance policy. Any advice appreciated, and if anyone could recommend someone for legal advice I’d appreciate it, not really sure where to start on this.

Thanks.

[TooMany2cvs]

Rojibo said:

Surely I would have thought that the company who installed the cladding in the first place would be liable for the costs, or that it would be covered by an insurance policy.

Why? The cladding was specified by the architect, and met all appropriate regs at the time of installation. It's just that a problem that wasn't covered by the regs has been found (in very high profile and emotive circumstances), and the freeholders are choosing to replace it as a precaution.

If they chose not to, and residents found out that decision was made on cost grounds, can you imagine the outcry? "They don't care about our safety!"
Even worse - if they chose not to, and nobody found out until there was a fire that the cladding contributed to?

It's an upgrade to the fabric of the structure, and that's only ever going to come from the leaseholders. You.

[Rojibo]

Ok, thanks, I’m not clear on the spec of the cladding and if that met the regulations at the time of the install. I know that it failed tests, but I’m unsure about the scope of it, which is what I’ll look into.

[SydneyBridge]

This is more about council tenants but still interesting to read

https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/insight/insight/fi...

[Collectingbrass]

I've just been through this with main doors in my flat & whether they need replacement.

Firstly dont panic. They have to notify you that major work is planned,, but thats not to say they will actually do it.

Secondly you really do need to get to the bottom of why they are replacing the cladding. While the Freeholder needs to act with due diligence and expert advice, they do need to not piss your money away because every one else is kneejerking. What engineering evidence have they presented to you?

Thirdly, if it is substandard why? Either it doesn't meet the building regs and ruling national standards *at the time of installation* or it does. If it does it doesnt need changing. If it doesn't meet these standards then there is potential for the Freeholder to pursue either the architect for not complying with these (unlikely) or the contractor for not complying with his contract. Both should have insurance for this, but depending on the contract there will be a 6 or 12 year time limit. It could well be that this route is not open to your Freeholder then you will need to pay. Of course it could be that the Freeholder accepted that there would be a reduced standard used, in which case they have potentially been negligent and you may have an arguement.

A couple of other things:
1. There is *no* requirement in law to make restrospective changes if the standards change after the building is built. If it was good enough at the time it doesnt need to be fixed now
2. Freeholders will always take the easy route and attempt to charge the Leaseholders. You will need to either swallow it or dig in. The costs of cladding replacement will be huge (my door was potentially £1300 and that was about right) and if you want to fight this you should lawyer up.

[thepeoplespal]

Look at it as an investment in making your next sale a bit quicker, while others flounder as mortgage companies make everyone jump through hoops for a couple of years.

Make sure you've got a copy of any certification, possibly a certified copy via a solicitor or select contractor on basis that everyone gets a copy of the certification.

[lbc]

Rojibo said:

all we know at the moment is that the costs are going to be greater than £250.

£250 is nothing compared to a block in Croydon, where each flat will have to pay upto £31,500.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jan/17/ci...

[matjk]

£31k is higher than £250 but then so is any number over £250 ! As always I suspect the leaseholders will get their pants pulled down, with the management company making a few quid along with the contractor

[KarlMac]

From a suppliers point of view I know that one of the cladding suppliers has downrated their standards on a very popular range of cladding, so there is a chance at the time of installation the cladding was compliant but this change by the manufacturer has made that void.

[Chrisgr31]

Interesting that they are changing the cladding when the block has sprinklers. I thought that the options were to have fire resistant cladding or sprinklers.

Incidentally I was reading today about a case in Salford where the Courts have held the tenants have to pay the cost of fire wardens pending the replacement of the cladding, which the tenants also have to pay for (probably) . In that case it appears the cladding said Not fire resistant on it!

[matjk]

Can’t see how sprinkles would help ! Yes if a fire started inside there’s a good chance the sprinklers would probably put that out and stop everything getting out of hand (ie Grenfell) but what happens is say a car crashed into the building , went up in flames and set the cladding alight , once that stuff got going nothing was going to put it out ! I wouldn’t feel safe in a high rise glad in that stuff

[Rojibo]

I also feel I have to question if the work is really necessary, the cladding is only on a small part of the building and we already have alternative measures. I think it has been said that it's at the freeholders discretion, I'm happy to pay for the work to be done if it's deemed necessary, but I can't help but get the feeling we're going to collectively get our pants pulled down and taken to the cleaners with over inflated costs for this one.

I guess I can only wait and see at this point.

ETA: I received this in a letter:

letter said:

Samples of cladding taken from the subject buildings were sent to the British Research Establishment
(BRE) for testing and, in their view, the cladding material was found to be in either Category 2 or
Category 3 in their screening test and would not, therefore, meet the requirements for limited
combustibility, as set out in Approved Document B guidance.

Document B came into effect in April 2007, before the flats were finished. Would it be likely in this case that it never met building regs at the time?

Edited by Rojibo on Monday 29th January 14:34

[therag3]

Based on that correspondence, I'd be responding saying that the building contractor should be resolving issue, or the freeholder should make a claim against the building guarantee (NHBC or similar, assuming there is one). If, for whatever reason, a claim can't be made, then i would at least insist that the management company seek competitive tenders for the works, to ensure the leaseholders are getting good value. Further, I would ask to see a copy of the tender report before any works are instructed to proceed.

[Collectingbrass]

Rojibo said:

Document B came into effect in April 2007, before the flats were finished. Would it be likely in this case that it never met building regs at the time?

Edited by Rojibo on Monday 29th January 14:34

On the face of it yes, though you would need to understand more about how it got Building Regs approval. As I understand it a lot of the approvals of questionable materials in similar circumstances were done from desk top studies and interpretation of results from "that" use case into "this" one. I don't know if that's what has happened here. See here for a more detailed explanation of how this could come about: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40465399 .

The whole thing is going to be quite a grey area and you really are heading into an area where you will need specialist advice, both from the fire engineering side, the law around the lease, whether it is something the buildings insurance should cover and the implications for any mortgage you may have.

[Rojibo]

Thinking about it, it may just be cheaper to suck it up and pay the costs to replace the cladding than challenge it legally.

As others have said at least it will put the issue to bed. I’ll update the thread as it progresses.

[V8 Fettler]

Rojibo said:

I also feel I have to question if the work is really necessary, the cladding is only on a small part of the building and we already have alternative measures. I think it has been said that it's at the freeholders discretion, I'm happy to pay for the work to be done if it's deemed necessary, but I can't help but get the feeling we're going to collectively get our pants pulled down and taken to the cleaners with over inflated costs for this one.

I guess I can only wait and see at this point.

ETA: I received this in a letter:

letter said:

Samples of cladding taken from the subject buildings were sent to the British Research Establishment
(BRE) for testing and, in their view, the cladding material was found to be in either Category 2 or
Category 3 in their screening test and would not, therefore, meet the requirements for limited
combustibility, as set out in Approved Document B guidance.

Document B came into effect in April 2007, before the flats were finished. Would it be likely in this case that it never met building regs at the time?

Edited by Rojibo on Monday 29th January 14:34

The historical construction/refurbishment works would have involved a design team. Minutes from design team meetings could be useful to you, as would details of the PI cover for key members of the design team.

[Lopey]

matjk said:

Can’t see how sprinkles would help ! Yes if a fire started inside there’s a good chance the sprinklers would probably put that out and stop everything getting out of hand (ie Grenfell) but what happens is say a car crashed into the building , went up in flames and set the cladding alight , once that stuff got going nothing was going to put it out ! I wouldn’t feel safe in a high rise glad in that stuff

The sprinklers would stop the fire taking hold on the inside, thus protectimg the occupants, and more importantly, the escape routes.

[Elysium]

V8 Fettler said:

Rojibo said:

I also feel I have to question if the work is really necessary, the cladding is only on a small part of the building and we already have alternative measures. I think it has been said that it's at the freeholders discretion, I'm happy to pay for the work to be done if it's deemed necessary, but I can't help but get the feeling we're going to collectively get our pants pulled down and taken to the cleaners with over inflated costs for this one.

I guess I can only wait and see at this point.

ETA: I received this in a letter:

letter said:

Samples of cladding taken from the subject buildings were sent to the British Research Establishment
(BRE) for testing and, in their view, the cladding material was found to be in either Category 2 or
Category 3 in their screening test and would not, therefore, meet the requirements for limited
combustibility, as set out in Approved Document B guidance.

Document B came into effect in April 2007, before the flats were finished. Would it be likely in this case that it never met building regs at the time?

Edited by Rojibo on Monday 29th January 14:34

The historical construction/refurbishment works would have involved a design team. Minutes from design team meetings could be useful to you, as would details of the PI cover for key members of the design team.

Building Regs are not retrospective. If this work was signed off and subsequently discovered to be defective then the client should be making a claim against the contractor as a latent defect.

There is no legal basis for removal under the regulations at the moment and a risk assessment would be the right approach for a building owner. If I were a tenant, I would be asking how the landlord had assesed the risk and why that had led them to conclude replacement was required. Interesting to know if insurers are driving this already.

[nikaiyo2]

Rojibo said:

Document B came into effect in April 2007, before the flats were finished. Would it be likely in this case that it never met building regs at the time?

Edited by Rojibo on Monday 29th January 14:34

When you say before these flats were finished, had construction started in 2007? If so I would imagine that they were built to comply with the previous version of Doc B. For obvious reasons materials etc are approved at the time of design not completion, especially for larger projects there can be some time between the two dates.
Testing to, and failing the current Doc B standard, revised in 2010, does not prove that there was any negligence at the time of construction.

[Rojibo]

Very good point, and that makes sense obviously. The construction was started pre 2007 but halted due to the recession. and later picked up by another company who bought the development.

Here's a plan of the cladding that needs replacing. I can't help but think just leave it as is:

Edited by Rojibo on Tuesday 30th January 10:36