Lives have of course already been miserably affected over the four years since building safety issues began to really affect leaseholders in large numbers, and there is something cruel about raising the hopes of people in desperate situations that cannot be fixed any time soon.
Within the industry, disputes over service charges for remediation works are repeatedly raising their ugly heads and look set to tie up leaseholders, freeholders and many different types of professionals in complex negotiations for which the rules sadly appear not to have been written. It would have been fairer to state clearly that the Treasury’s coffers could not be opened any wider, that the legislation will take many months if not years, and that even with the newfound sense of purpose and vigour, unravelling responsibility and unlocking financial solutions remains a long way off.
Regulation
The massive regulatory failure of recent decades seems to have been removed from the conversation, which may be superficially politically attractive, but will ultimately lead to unworkable solutions. The model on which the industry has operated for some time now is deeply compartmentalised, with multiple, legally distinct parties that all require risk to be packaged, offset and watered down. It may well be that post-Grenfell we require a single entity to remain liable and to retain sufficient financial substance or backing for that to mean something. Many innocent buyers will have thought we had that, but they have been sadly disabused.
The best answer has always been to narrow down the areas of focus to truly dangerous homes, and then to remediate them using public money that is subsequently clawed back from those found responsible after due legal process. The reality of the Building Safety Fund has been understandably complex, but efforts should be redoubled and the sensible provisions for clawback from responsible parties should be relied upon to do their job. A better understanding of risk is an absolute requirement, and bringing lenders, insurers and surveyors together to work on solutions is far more critical to freeing up the market – and people's lives – than playing the blame game.
If the system is to be made fit for purpose going forwards, it is essential that designs that have been approved, products that have been certified as safe, and work that has been signed off can be fully relied upon. That is clearly the responsibility of the government, but it should also be acknowledged that there may be additional cost implications.
