The developers responsible for the dangerous flaws in the skyscrapers have evaded their obligations by liquidating themselves into non-existence – and leaving thousands of innocent homeowners to collect the bill.
The companies were liquidated due to the sale of blocks fraught with potentially fatal fire safety problems. That left a multi-million hole government plan to make the industry pay for the lining crisis.
Michael Gove, the secretary for raising the level, this week upset the developers to “play fast and loose with the rules”. He has promised that homeowners in buildings 11 meters (36 ft) or taller will not pay anything to repair hazardous cladding – although they still face unusual bills to fix other problems.
However, many tenants have been prevented from filing claims against the developer who built their homes, as the companies in question have since gone bankrupt. Others were set up as “special purpose vehicles” and disbanded when the building was sold, thus avoiding future responsibilities. Martin Boyd of the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership campaign group noted that this practice is “widespread” in the construction industry.
“Special purpose vehicles have been endemic throughout the cladding crisis. This is the easiest way for developers to sell on, with the added benefit that there is no responsibility in the future, ”Mr Boyd said. Due to unclear tactics, homeowners such as 60-year-old Christopher Grant * have no legal remedy to claim harmful remediation costs. Mr. Grant bought a home in the new Nova House building in Slough, Berks, before countless faults were discovered after the Grenfell fire.
The building is in the phase of changing the cladding, financed by local and state loans. But tenants have to cover the cost of repairing a non-compliant fire alarm system and area. The latter in blocks is crucial to curb the spread of fire. It will cost £ 60,000, Mr Grant said.
“Lawyers have advised that it makes no sense to follow the developer. After the construction was completed, it was liquidated. We are demanding against the insurance company, but it is challenging this, “he added.