Tenants may have to foot cladding removal bill

The government has reminded building owners they must fix any faults discovered while removing suspect cladding materials from privately-owned residential buildings, but stopped short of confirming tenants would not have to pay for the work.

Answering a question from Croydon North Labour MP Steve Reed, housing minister Esther McVey said the government had been “consistently clear” that building safety was the responsibility of the building owner.

McVey said the government was considering responses to its consultation on building safety reforms, which had been held between June and July this year, and had sought views on how remediation costs “could be mitigated”.

Yesterday housing secretary Robert Jenrick effectively ruled out compensating those leaseholders who faced massive bills to pay for the removal of non-ACM cladding.

Reed had asked the government whether social and leasehold tenants would be liable for the cost of remedial work in a block of flats housing both groups which is owned by a housing association.

McVey did not directly answer the question, but went on: “Government intervention does not remove responsibility for overall building safety from the building owners and if other fire safety risks are uncovered they must remedy them.

“Building owners should consider all routes to meet costs, protecting residents where they can – for example through warranties and recovering costs from contractors for incorrect or poor work.”

“We are considering responses currently and will set out our conclusions by the end of the year,” she added.

Ministerial intervention to provide funding for the removal of unsafe aluminium composite material (ACM) cladding was “wholly exceptional, based on the unparalleled fire risk ACM poses”, McVey said.

The latest government data as of 30 September 2019 for the 168 privately-owned residential buildings featuring ACM cladding showed owners of 24 had started remediation, 76 had a remediation plan in place but had yet to start work, 46 had announced an intent to remediate and were developing plans, and 22 had what the government called “unclear remediation plans”.