• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Before Header

  • Home
  • What is LKP
  • Contact
Donate

Leasehold Knowledge Management Logo

Secretariat of the All Party Parliamentary Group on leasehold reform

Mobile Menu

  • Home
  • What is LKP
  • Contact
  • Advice
  • News
    • APPG
    • ARMA
    • Bellway
    • Benjamin Mire
    • Brixton Hill Court
    • Canary Riverside
    • Charter Quay
    • Chelsea Bridge Wharf
    • Commonhold
    • Communities Select Committee
    • Conveyancing Association
    • Countrywide
    • DCLG
    • E&J Capital Partners
    • Exit fees
    • Fleecehold
    • FPRA
    • Gleeson Homes
    • Ground rent scandal
    • Grenfell cladding
    • Hanover
    • House managers flat
    • House of Lords
    • Informal lease extension
    • Insurance scams
    • IRPM
    • Jim Fitzpatrick MP
    • John Christodoulou
    • Justin Bates
    • Justin Madders MP
    • Law Commission
    • LEASE
    • Local authority leasehold
    • London Assembly
    • Louie Burns
    • Martin Paine
    • McCarthy and Stone
    • Moskovitz / Gurvits
    • Mulberry Mews
    • National Leasehold Campaign
    • Oakland Court
    • OFT / CMA
    • Park Homes
    • Persimmon
    • Philip Rainey QC
    • Plantation Wharf
    • Peverel
    • Prostitutes
    • Quadrangle House
    • Redrow
    • Retirement
    • RICS
    • Right To Manage Federation
    • Roger Southam
    • Sean Powell
    • RTM
    • SFO
    • Sinclair Gardens Investments
    • Sir Ed Davey
    • Sir Peter Bottomley
    • St George’s Wharf
    • Taylor Wimpey
    • Tchenguiz
    • West India Quay
    • William Waldorf Astor
    • Windrush Court
  • Parliament
  • Accreditation
Menu
  • Advice
  • News
      • APPG
      • ARMA
      • Bellway
      • Benjamin Mire
      • Brixton Hill Court
      • Canary Riverside
      • Charter Quay
      • Chelsea Bridge Wharf
      • Commonhold
      • Communities Select Committee
      • Conveyancing Association
      • Countrywide
      • DCLG
      • E&J Capital Partners
      • Exit fees
      • Fleecehold
      • FPRA
      • Gleeson Homes
      • Ground rent scandal
      • Grenfell cladding
      • Hanover
      • House managers flat
      • House of Lords
      • Informal lease extension
      • Insurance scams
      • IRPM
      • Jim Fitzpatrick MP
      • John Christodoulou
      • Justin Bates
      • Justin Madders MP
      • Law Commission
      • LEASE
      • Local authority leasehold
      • London Assembly
      • Louie Burns
      • Martin Paine
      • McCarthy and Stone
      • Moskovitz / Gurvits
      • Mulberry Mews
      • National Leasehold Campaign
      • Oakland Court
      • OFT / CMA
      • Park Homes
      • Persimmon
      • Philip Rainey QC
      • Plantation Wharf
      • Peverel
      • Prostitutes
      • Quadrangle House
      • Redrow
      • Retirement
      • RICS
      • Right To Manage Federation
      • Roger Southam
      • Sean Powell
      • RTM
      • SFO
      • Sinclair Gardens Investments
      • Sir Ed Davey
      • Sir Peter Bottomley
      • St George’s Wharf
      • Taylor Wimpey
      • Tchenguiz
      • West India Quay
      • William Waldorf Astor
      • Windrush Court
  • Parliament
  • Accreditation
You are here: Home / News / Grenfell cladding / Cladding crisis reveals why freeholders are an impediment to any solution

Cladding crisis reveals why freeholders are an impediment to any solution

July 19, 2019 //  by Sebastian O'Kelly

Martin Boyd, LKP chair, addressing the London Assembly yesterday. LKP has organised the only two meetings at Westminster involving the leaseholders of cladding sites

The disaster of flammable cladding on blocks of flats and what to do about it is providing the biggest push to transform leasehold law since the eruption of the doubling ground rent scandal which we exposed in 2016.

The question being asked is: what is the third-party freehold owning landlord actually for?

For ground rent lobbyists these commercial operators – even when unidentifiable and based offshore – are the “responsible custodians” of the site. Only they can professionally manage blocks of flats for the long term

Unfortunately, these “responsible custodians” proved to be absent in the aftermath of the Grenfell tragedy in June 2017.

It was rather quickly revealed that around 300 private blocks of flats had similar ACM cladding (aluminium composite material) and local authorities were tasked with identifying them and ordering the cladding’s removal.

The question immediately arose: who was going to pay?

Both Communities Secretary Sajid Javid and his successor James Brokenshire urged freehold owners to “do the decent thing” and provide the money to remove the cladding and pay for emergency measures such as fire marshals.

After all, their thinking went, the freehold-owning landlord is the building’s owner; it is his asset and this is a long-term investment.

This fundamentally misunderstood what a freeholder is. He may be the “landlord” in law, but he is in reality only the owner of a building’s legally enforceable income streams.

LKP warned ministers and officials that freeholders would not – and in many cases, could not – pay the multi-million bills involved, and we were proved correct.

On May 9 Mr Brokenshire raided his department’s housing budget of £200 million – prompting the permanent undersecretary Melanie Dawes to reveal publicly her view that this was in breach of government spending rules. Her letter was reproduced in Inside Housing.

Today it is revealed that hundreds of other sites are now blighted with inflammable HPL cladding – high pressure laminate – and that people are living in potential “death traps”, to use the term of the shadow housing minister Sarah Jones.

There is dark talk of a cover-up.

When we first met senior officials about cladding in 2017, we warned them the issues of cladding went well beyond Grenfell’s ACM cladding only.

It was surely obvious that external wall materials of flats above 18 metres high needed to be examined.

Yet MHCLG officials insisted on restricting their inquiry to ACM material only.

The result is now a disaster: we are back to where we started, but with many more blocks of flats now urgently needing cladding to be removed.

Is there another £200 million? Or £400 million? Or a billion?

Government accused of cladding ‘cover-up’ two years after Grenfell Tower fire

The Government has been accused of “a poor attempt at a cover-up” in an announcement about cladding tests following the Grentell Tower fire. Two years on from the disaster which claimed 72 lives, people are still living in “potential death traps”, Labour’s shadow housing minister Sarah Jones said.

Building owners with “Grenfell” cladding must take immediate action to fix it

Cladding similar to that used on Grenfell Tower is lethal and must be fixed “as soon as possible”, government fire tests have found. Long-awaited tests carried out on High Pressure Laminate (HPL) material – which is wrapped around the homes of thousands of people in the UK – found it was “clear” in some cases it had to be removed.

And is this a justifiable expenditure? After all, leaseholders are actually owners of a leasehold asset. A not inconsiderable number are buy-to-let landlords.

Or, as Melanie Dawes put it when considering the £200 million handout: “The distributional impact is likely to be slightly regressive since leaseholders, on average, have incomes higher than those of the general population.”

LKP, as the secretariat of the All Party Parliamentary Group on leasehold reform, has organised two Westminster meetings with residents living in these blighted sites – the only organisation to have done so.

It has consistently warned officials and ministers that their approach to cladding was wrong.

We offered in 2017 to host a meeting with developers and freeholders and leaseholders to provide solutions – such as the government loan system to remove cladding in Australia – but officials thought they knew best.

It must be clear to everyone that the government cannot afford to keep paying to fix our broken buildings.

And it must be crystal clear that freehold-owning speculators are not going to do so.

Without exception, every ground rent speculator declined to respond to Mr Javid and Mr Brokenshire appeal to pay up to remove cladding.

So, what on earth are they for?

To sort this mess out we need to follow the Australian model and have government loan in place to remove the cladding.

The money cannot be leaned to leaseholders as they are only tenants in law.

The freeholders have demonstrated that they are not going to help.

At every cladding site the freehold needs to be handed over to the leaseholders, whose combined leases are far more valuable than the freehold.

Most freeholds are worth around 1-3% of the value of a building: the value of the leases far outweighs that of the freehold, yet the freehold owner is the “landlord”, makes all the decisions and is treated in law as the building’s owner (even though he never pays for anything).

Leaseholders need to deal with this problem and have possession of it, paying back the government loan as part owners of the freeholds. Freed from a third-party freeholder, they can also seek relief from developers, warranty providers and, yes, building regulators. In the courts, if necessary.

But the sheer pointlessness of having a third party landlord could not be more obvious.

They are the building owner when it comes to any income, but are entirely absent when it comes to showing any serious responsibility.

Over the cladding crisis, they are an impediment and need removing.

Related posts:

Government thinking freeholders are paternalistic long-term custodians of a building is where it has gone wrong over Grenfell cladding Brokenshire tells freeholders to pay up to remove Grenfell cladding. But how can that work? Tchenguiz group dismisses government ‘hollow threat’ to make freeholders pay for Grenfell cladding removal Grenfell cladding crisis prompts the question: what are freeholders actually for? Theresa May also thinks that ‘building owners’ – freeholders – will pay for Grenfell cladding

Category: Grenfell cladding, Latest News, NewsTag: James Brokenshire MP, Melanie Dawes, Sajid Javid

Latest Tweets

Tweets by @LKPleasehold
Previous Post: « Martin Boyd flags controversial civil servant letter to City Hall at fire safety meeting
Next Post: Welsh policymakers back monetary ground rents while pondering ‘compulsory commonhold’ »

Above Footer

Advising leaseholders. Avoiding disasters.
Stopping forfeiture. Exposing abuses. Urging reform.

We depend on individuals for the majority of our funding.

Support Us and Donate

LKP Managing Agents

Become an LKP Managing Agent

Stay in Touch

To achieve victory in the leasehold game where you are playing against professionals and with rules that they know all too well - stay informed with the LKP newsletter.
Sign Up for Newsletter

Professional Directory

The following advertisements are from firms that seek business from leaseholders.
Click on the logos for company profiles.

Leasehold Law logo

Footer

About LKP

  • What is LKP
  • Privacy and data
  • LKP Site Map

Categories

  • News
  • Grenfell cladding
  • Commonhold
  • Law Commission
  • Fleecehold
  • Parliament
  • Press

Contact

Leasehold Knowledge Partnership
Open Data Institute
3rd Floor
65 Clifton Street
London EC2A 4JE

sok@leaseholdknowledge.com

martin.boyd@leaseholdknowledge.com

Copyright © 2023 Leasehold Knowledge Partnership | All rights reserved
Leasehold Knowledge Partnership Limited (company number: 08999652) is a company limited by guarantee that is a registered charity (number: 1162584) with the Charities Commission.
Website by Callia Web