LKP would like to express our deepest sympathy to all those affected by tragic fire at Grenfell Tower. Residents of flats across the country are now quite naturally also concerned about the saftey of their own blocks.
The press has been speculating on who and what is to blame, but it will take experts some time to work out all the factors that contributed to this disaster. It will take even longer to understand how policies and regulations should change across the social, private and retirement sectors.
LKP patron, Jim Fitzpatrick MP, ex fireman and one time Minister for London, leads the first debate on the issue in the House of Commons on the 26th June.
Jim has just spoken on the BBC Sunday Politics show with a debate at 11:41 along with new Labour MP Emma Dent Coad and conservative MP Bob Neil. As Jim has explained there are many factors to consider, including compliance with the regulations that already exist. The programme can be watched HERE
LKP plans to publish a number of articles looking at some of the wider issues over the next few weeks. As Jim Fizpatrick pointed out today the buck stops with parliament. But there are many more groups who have answers to give.
- Why have the s20 procurement rules, which the CMA recommended should be amended in 2014, not been updated?
- Why do we have problems with compliance with existing building regulations?
- Why have building regulations not moved forward?
- How can we still have these issues when the Health an Safety Executive has been in existence for 40 years?
Although it would not have been relevant in the case of Grenfell Tower leaseholders can make some positive contributions to the saftey of their block by supporting expenditure on saftey issues.
On occasions we have received complaints from leaseholders about their property manager wanting to bring their fire system up to date. Their argument is that there is no obligation for an existing building to meet current fire regulations so why should he have to pay?
Leaseholders can also help with their own fire alarms by adhering to the manufactures advice. These alarms should be replaced after a certain period of time. Here is some useful advice from the London Fire brigade which makes clear fire alarms should be replaced at least every 10 years. http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/SmokeAlarms.asp
Leaseholder resident associations should ask their managing agent for a copy of their site’s most recent fire risk and saftey assessment.
Related posts:
Sesame Apartments: Yet another anonymous Long Harbour freeholder demanding £2.2 million over Grenfell cladding
Blenheim Centre flat owners to be spared £20,000-30,000 each on Grenfell cladding bill, Legal & General tells LKP
20,000 leaseholders trapped in blocks with Grenfell cladding, says Telegraph
Croydon leaseholders at Citiscape face £750,000 bill to remove Grenfell Tower cladding
Grenfell United link up with leaseholder groups to protest cladding crisis and warn next government of Grenfell 2
Given the LKP’s focus is rightly on leasehold and I am a leaseholder (thankfully in a small GF/1st floor block of 2 flats with a few four flat communal blocks nearby), I’m gob-smacked by what is unfolding for leaseholders in tower blocks around the country.
As of now there seems to be 27 towers that have failed fire safety tests on long standing cladding – did nobody know to test this stuff before?
In Camden it seems a combination of failures -from absent fire doors to unclad gas pipes in stairwells – is the cause of evacuating hundreds of households including those who own their homes? Seems the council landlord can force them out, owners or not.
Did nobody know fire doors were missing long ago? Or that gas pipes had not been clad?
This all suggests result of long term public sector deregulation/privatisation of responsibility/buck passing and demonization of fire safety regs and watering down of regs generally.
This then cascades down to private leasehold blocks.
On the one hand, at least Camden is acting. But why not before? And why not all the other councils and private care homes etc? And where does this leave leaseholders who bought their flats and paid huge sums for major works?
According to the Camden Leaseholders’ Forum, Camden started pooling service charges across its blocks among its leaseholders, as distinct from charging for costs in a specific building? If true and if a general approach nationally, it must be a nightmare for leaseholders in social tower blocks to really know what they are charged for or have any real control over what is done.
I spent years fighting for transparency of accounting about only two dozen leasehold flats in a small private development. Even RTM and employing our own agents has not brought transparency as I am afraid these leasehold agents all seem of a type and treat leaseholders as numpties. So I can’t imagine how impossible it is to achieve transparency, fair play and control in large social landlord towers. RTM would be out of the question.
The same forum reveals that major works costs have been five figure sums for leaseholders. No surprise. We all know, or should be able to guess, how expensive refurb of such large blocks is, and can see before our eyes the evidence of lack of control over contracts and standards.
As an ex LA officer I never understood the way government fobbed people off with offering RTB in tower blocks. A moment’s common sense should show how crazy this is for the leaseholders, while a nice little earner for the social landlord.
There is a huge stinking scandal behind leasehold at all levels.
As someone who when researching RTM took great care over landlord safety responsibilities, even this topic is a cesspit. Ever since the Fire Safety Order came in and landlords could charge for private assessments, we started facing huge annual inspection fees with no evidence of any practical measures.
Agents never bothered to shift flammable stuff dumped in hallways. They just creamed assessment fees each year.
Don’t go looking for straightforward advice on sensible safety measures needed in small blocks. If you find it let me know.
We have now contacted our local fire service for any fee they will charge to do a measured and professional assessment not based on vested interest.
Leaseholders do not trust what ‘professional’ agents tell them or charge them, and justifiably so. As a small RTM we cannot trust agents, and we contract with them! What hope do leaseholders in huge social landlord tower blocks have of control?
I have shared Freehold but idiotic directors on the company board (7 flats) who in my view are are lambs to the slaughter as far as our ‘Professional agent ( Who In believe should be charged with fraud and imprisoned for 25 yr years….) ‘ is concerned. It is an ongoing battle to make them adhere to the lease. I have been threatened with forfeiture, hell and damnation m intimidation etc , Thing is pay the recoverable service charge demand but not the excessive/ unlawful charge. I am still waiting for the court proceedings…..In my view Managing Agents are nothing more than a bunch of slimey hustlers. Oh and of course he/she has the useless ‘assocRICS badge- what a joke………leaesholders in tower blocks have / had no chance, until now- I’ll bet they will be listened to NOW!! Shame it took the death Of many innocents……….
‘GRENFELL TOWER:’ A CHRONICLEOF DEATHS FORETOLD. Page 6 Private eye latest edition.
Worth a read ……..
Mr Epstein, I have no doubt that one can buy a ‘ Fire Safety Inspection Kit from W. H Smith. However my current agent and her employer charged in the region of £500 for an inspection that I do not believe took place.In my view they obtained monies by deception =FRAUD. I believe our agent and her employer are nothing more than slimey hustlers from the Peverel stable. I will do my utmost to ensure that they are brought to some kind if justice!! Thankfully I have the wherewithal to make this happen. This is my first experience with a managing agent and my goodness, what a dreadful experience… I am going to make my agent wish she / he had chosen a different career path OR a different client!!
Peverel (re-branded Firstport) have recently been fines 460,000 pounds for breaches of Health & Safety legislation which led to a fatal fire at Gibson Court, Esher, Surrey.
Fire safety curtains fitted into the lift due to poor maintenance/repair failed, resulting in a fire jumping into the loft area,and spreading to another part of the building .
An emergency call to Careline(owned by Firstport) that would have alerted the Fire Brigade that the fire had spread was not passed on.
As yet, no mention of the fine has been made on any Firstport website.
Indeed , days after the fine was imposed, Firstport senior management were being wined and dined at another “awards” ceremony.