Government money to improve private housing
Discussion
I've seen two stories recently where taxpayers' money is being used to fund improvements to private property... One in the name of safety (£5Bn to remove flammable cladding from private housing) one in the name of reducing CO2 emissions (£450M).
Both worthwhile causes, but are they a valid use of taxpayers' money? I can sort of understand grants with some things, where the government effectively takes it as a cut in tax to sell something that people wouldn't otherwise have bought (so overall a net better position), but what is the return on the government's investment for replacing cladding vs forcing developers to pay?
Taking the cladding issue; much of the UK housing stock was built more than 50 years ago and every year people find their houses contain asbestos, or lead water pipes and whilst they're not pleased about it they have to do something about it themselves. In the case of a privately-owned block of flats they have had to pay through their service charges.
I sympathise with someone who has found their flat has been clad with what is effectively kindling and are facing a £20k+ cost to sort it out, but surely their first port of call is the developers. As it's a safety issue, if the developers drag their heels or refuse then surely the residents should arrange for replacement then sue the developers to get it back?
In the cases where the developer has evaporated, and someone genuinely cannot pull the money together through savings, a loan or remortgage, couldn't the government pay the cost of the replacement and then hold a claim against the title of the property? So if it's e.g. an OAP or simply someone who is stretched very thin, simply include a condition that when the flat is sold the government has dibs on that portion of the proceeds of the sale.
Both worthwhile causes, but are they a valid use of taxpayers' money? I can sort of understand grants with some things, where the government effectively takes it as a cut in tax to sell something that people wouldn't otherwise have bought (so overall a net better position), but what is the return on the government's investment for replacing cladding vs forcing developers to pay?
Taking the cladding issue; much of the UK housing stock was built more than 50 years ago and every year people find their houses contain asbestos, or lead water pipes and whilst they're not pleased about it they have to do something about it themselves. In the case of a privately-owned block of flats they have had to pay through their service charges.
I sympathise with someone who has found their flat has been clad with what is effectively kindling and are facing a £20k+ cost to sort it out, but surely their first port of call is the developers. As it's a safety issue, if the developers drag their heels or refuse then surely the residents should arrange for replacement then sue the developers to get it back?
In the cases where the developer has evaporated, and someone genuinely cannot pull the money together through savings, a loan or remortgage, couldn't the government pay the cost of the replacement and then hold a claim against the title of the property? So if it's e.g. an OAP or simply someone who is stretched very thin, simply include a condition that when the flat is sold the government has dibs on that portion of the proceeds of the sale.
donkmeister said:
I've seen two stories recently where taxpayers' money is being used to fund improvements to private property... One in the name of safety (£5Bn to remove flammable cladding from private housing) one in the name of reducing CO2 emissions (£450M).
Both worthwhile causes, but are they a valid use of taxpayers' money? I can sort of understand grants with some things, where the government effectively takes it as a cut in tax to sell something that people wouldn't otherwise have bought (so overall a net better position), but what is the return on the government's investment for replacing cladding vs forcing developers to pay?
Taking the cladding issue; much of the UK housing stock was built more than 50 years ago and every year people find their houses contain asbestos, or lead water pipes and whilst they're not pleased about it they have to do something about it themselves. In the case of a privately-owned block of flats they have had to pay through their service charges.
I sympathise with someone who has found their flat has been clad with what is effectively kindling and are facing a £20k+ cost to sort it out, but surely their first port of call is the developers. As it's a safety issue, if the developers drag their heels or refuse then surely the residents should arrange for replacement then sue the developers to get it back?
In the cases where the developer has evaporated, and someone genuinely cannot pull the money together through savings, a loan or remortgage, couldn't the government pay the cost of the replacement and then hold a claim against the title of the property? So if it's e.g. an OAP or simply someone who is stretched very thin, simply include a condition that when the flat is sold the government has dibs on that portion of the proceeds of the sale.
I think the issue is the goverment is mandating the change, other than Grenfel how many clad buildings burts in to flames an killed thier owners....few is the anserr but now all properties struggle to have a value or be mortsgable because the narative on grenfell was cladding caused the issue.....where as it does seem that was only part of the issue, its installation, the fire exits being open, the dodgy fridge that caught on fire (owner alerted his neighbours to the danger so not to blame).Both worthwhile causes, but are they a valid use of taxpayers' money? I can sort of understand grants with some things, where the government effectively takes it as a cut in tax to sell something that people wouldn't otherwise have bought (so overall a net better position), but what is the return on the government's investment for replacing cladding vs forcing developers to pay?
Taking the cladding issue; much of the UK housing stock was built more than 50 years ago and every year people find their houses contain asbestos, or lead water pipes and whilst they're not pleased about it they have to do something about it themselves. In the case of a privately-owned block of flats they have had to pay through their service charges.
I sympathise with someone who has found their flat has been clad with what is effectively kindling and are facing a £20k+ cost to sort it out, but surely their first port of call is the developers. As it's a safety issue, if the developers drag their heels or refuse then surely the residents should arrange for replacement then sue the developers to get it back?
In the cases where the developer has evaporated, and someone genuinely cannot pull the money together through savings, a loan or remortgage, couldn't the government pay the cost of the replacement and then hold a claim against the title of the property? So if it's e.g. an OAP or simply someone who is stretched very thin, simply include a condition that when the flat is sold the government has dibs on that portion of the proceeds of the sale.
So the goverment are in part the cause so public money is being used to fix the problem, same with enviromental changes. Now My home is not clad an my gas boiler is 2 years old so I think I am good for 20 plus years so I have no dog in the fight but I can see others might an think it unfair
donkmeister said:
I've seen two stories recently where taxpayers' money is being used to fund improvements to private property... One in the name of safety (£5Bn to remove flammable cladding from private housing) one in the name of reducing CO2 emissions (£450M).
Both worthwhile causes, but are they a valid use of taxpayers' money? I can sort of understand grants with some things, where the government effectively takes it as a cut in tax to sell something that people wouldn't otherwise have bought (so overall a net better position), but what is the return on the government's investment for replacing cladding vs forcing developers to pay?
Taking the cladding issue; much of the UK housing stock was built more than 50 years ago and every year people find their houses contain asbestos, or lead water pipes and whilst they're not pleased about it they have to do something about it themselves. In the case of a privately-owned block of flats they have had to pay through their service charges.
I sympathise with someone who has found their flat has been clad with what is effectively kindling and are facing a £20k+ cost to sort it out, but surely their first port of call is the developers. As it's a safety issue, if the developers drag their heels or refuse then surely the residents should arrange for replacement then sue the developers to get it back?
In the cases where the developer has evaporated, and someone genuinely cannot pull the money together through savings, a loan or remortgage, couldn't the government pay the cost of the replacement and then hold a claim against the title of the property? So if it's e.g. an OAP or simply someone who is stretched very thin, simply include a condition that when the flat is sold the government has dibs on that portion of the proceeds of the sale.
The government created, or at least massively contributed to the cladding crisis themselves.Both worthwhile causes, but are they a valid use of taxpayers' money? I can sort of understand grants with some things, where the government effectively takes it as a cut in tax to sell something that people wouldn't otherwise have bought (so overall a net better position), but what is the return on the government's investment for replacing cladding vs forcing developers to pay?
Taking the cladding issue; much of the UK housing stock was built more than 50 years ago and every year people find their houses contain asbestos, or lead water pipes and whilst they're not pleased about it they have to do something about it themselves. In the case of a privately-owned block of flats they have had to pay through their service charges.
I sympathise with someone who has found their flat has been clad with what is effectively kindling and are facing a £20k+ cost to sort it out, but surely their first port of call is the developers. As it's a safety issue, if the developers drag their heels or refuse then surely the residents should arrange for replacement then sue the developers to get it back?
In the cases where the developer has evaporated, and someone genuinely cannot pull the money together through savings, a loan or remortgage, couldn't the government pay the cost of the replacement and then hold a claim against the title of the property? So if it's e.g. an OAP or simply someone who is stretched very thin, simply include a condition that when the flat is sold the government has dibs on that portion of the proceeds of the sale.
They failed to regulate against it adequately despite being told decades ago that there was a problem. The late Sr David Amess was on an APPC focussed on this very subject and tried to warn about the risk of a Grenfell-style disaster in 2014. He was ignored completely.
They were responsible for ensuring that building inspectors have no teeth and consequently even blocks that didn't meet the regs at the time they were built were signed off as fine.
Then, after having failed to regulate against it, their hand was forced by Grenfell to "do something". So they pushed out some advice notes that instantly made thousands of blocks unsellable, regardless of their risk level. They required a survey to be done to prove a block safe, but they specified only certain professionals (in short supply) could carry it out, and refused to underwrite any insurance for them, so they all erred on the side of caution and condemned many blocks to ruinously expensive remediation, and horrendous interim costs by employing fire wardens which are an almost entirely useless intervention.
Having rendered all these blocks unsellable they were then gobsmacked to find that the developers won't pay, and in most cases they are wound up shortly after completion of a block anyway, so there's no one left to go after. So now people face bills of more than 50% of their property value in many cases.
My block is getting our cladding remediated at taxpayer expense, and to be honest there's nothing really wrong with it as far as I can tell. It's just aluminium sheeting with some wooden batons behind it that it's screwed into. Really it poses no serious risk compared to the stuff they stuck on Grenfell, but thanks to the government advice note every single flat here is worthless and can't be mortgaged. We're the lucky ones, if we had other "dangers" then we'd not be getting any funding for them as the fund only covers cladding, not things like missing fire stops.
Now they are saying that actually many blocks aren't really a danger despite failing their EWS1 assessment, but oddly enough the genie won't go back in the bottle and the banks won't touch them.
I think your analogy is faulty - a private householder can choose to put some maintenance off, and they are *never* forced to make their house comply with legislation that was changed retrospectively. If I have a house and find some asbestos I can choose to leave it well alone if I wish, or even sell the house. I certainly wouldn't be forced to pay £500 per month for an asbestos warden to watch it until I can get it removed at a cost of 50% my house value. Likewise I'd never be told to widen all my doorways and install ramp access to make it more accessible in line with current new build rules.
Leaseholders don't have that choice, they're being forced to remediate at huge expense, and in many cases the government have admitted it may not even be necessary. In the meantime they pay for bonkers things like Waking Watch which can in themselves run to as much as a mortgage payment.
That's why morally the government should be stepping in to clean up their mess, but we could also focus on the economic impact, tens of thousands of properties on the first rung of the ladder are now worthless, that will impact the market overall so is another reason why it should be sorted out.
We had a guy knock on the door a few weeks ago. Long story short, we've had free cavity wall insulation fitted and the boiler is being replaced for nothing next week - to reduce carbon emissions. Guy has been up front, his company get around £8k in grants per house.
About 20+ of the neighbours are getting it done too, all of us are PH director cliches. Houses are all 20 years old.
About 20+ of the neighbours are getting it done too, all of us are PH director cliches. Houses are all 20 years old.
QuartzDad said:
We had a guy knock on the door a few weeks ago. Long story short, we've had free cavity wall insulation fitted and the boiler is being replaced for nothing next week - to reduce carbon emissions. Guy has been up front, his company get around £8k in grants per house.
About 20+ of the neighbours are getting it done too, all of us are PH director cliches. Houses are all 20 years old.
Must admit I thought the freebies were only available to the benefits crowd...About 20+ of the neighbours are getting it done too, all of us are PH director cliches. Houses are all 20 years old.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff