Statement on Cladding Fire Safety Bill

The House of Lords’ decision to reject the Government’s cladding bill yesterday should remind the Government that its responsibilities to leaseholders and tenants goes further than simply removing unsafe cladding. Proper plans must also be put in place to rectify the costs of additional safety procedures such as waking watches, which have been mandated by the Government. The additional costs incurred by various parties, including that of fire safety surveys, should be seen as part of the overall cost of the cladding crisis. It is important that these wider issues are resolved in order to avoid ambiguity.

Written by Israel Moskovitz,

“Response to the Government cladding announcement” first appeared on my Medium profile.

Response to the Government cladding announcement

The Government has faced huge amounts of pressure from across the property sector to resolve this issue. Is it right that the fund to remove unsafe cladding is increased, which will finally end the months of confusion and anxiety for many thousands of people. However, the funding must go further; the Government’s decision to exclude thousands of leaseholders from access to this relief will take some people back to square one.

“There must be a clear pathway forward. Although the loan scheme is a welcome effort to accelerate the work to remove the cladding, it must come with more clarity about the costs to leaseholders and how it will affect their future. It is also essential that the Government sets out a clear response to managing fire safety costs in order to ensure the cladding crisis is resolved once and for all.

Written by Israel Moskovitz,

“Response to the Government cladding announcement” first appeared on my Medium profile.