Barry Gardiner raises St Modwen (Wembley Central) scandal in House of Commons debate on the Building Safety Bill

 

Barry Gardiner MP (Labour Brent North) in a welcome intervention yesterday raised the issue of the St Modwen development in Wembley Central Square in the House of Commons debate of the Building Safety Bill.  SEE LINK to previous post

I am not sure what is worse for leaseholders: the fact that they are in constant fear because their homes are not safe, the fact that they cannot afford to make them safe and are being harassed by greedy managing agents, or the fact that they are trapped in their flats without any easy option to sell and move on with their lives. Today’s statement and the Bill do not fundamentally change that for all the reasons the Father of the House, Sir Peter Bottomley, set out in his brief but excellent speech.

During the passage of the Fire Safety Bill, Ministers promised that these issues would be addressed in the Building Safety Bill. Lord Greenhalgh said:

“it is unacceptable for leaseholders to have to worry about costs of fixing historic safety defects in their buildings that they did not cause” and that

“building owners are responsible for ensuring the safety of residents”, and he said that they should

“protect leaseholders from the costs of remediating historic building defects.”

I do not know what the correct term in Parliament is for someone who make promises that they do not keep, but I know what they call them on the streets of Brent North: they call them a Government Minister.

Extending the scope and duration of the Defective Premises Act 1972 in the Building Safety Bill shows that the Government do not understand the extent of the problem. I ask the Minister to explain to my constituents who live in the Wembley Central development how it will help them. The original developer of their homes, St Modwen, has washed its hands of these defective properties. It sold them to an offshore company in Jersey in 2018, following the introduction of the new building regulations. It was in partnership with Sowcrest, which is now in a very convenient liquidation. So who exactly does the Minister think my constituents can chase here? What are the Government prepared to do about buildings with obscure corporate ownership?

I first contacted St Modwen in 2017, immediately after the Grenfell tragedy. It repeatedly assured me that the buildings were safe and in 2018 confirmed in writing that no fire safety defects had been identified. I am now told that the cladding on this building is the same as that used in Grenfell Tower and the fire safety report has identified fire stopping defects throughout the construction process. In May this year, St Modwen agreed to a takeover bid of £1.2 billion from Blackstone. Can the Minister tell me how this Bill will make them accountable for their actions? It was not the leaseholders who decided to use flammable cladding or to leave out fire stopping in voids or cut corners—developers made those decisions. My constituents have neither the deep pockets nor the legal expertise to fight these corporate chameleons, who start off in London and end up in Jersey as a different company. This Bill shows that the Government either do not understand or do not care. The companies can afford lengthy litigation; leaseholders cannot.

Finally, the Minister must explain why there is so little progress on the building safety fund. I wrote to St Modwen on 23 June. I still await a response. I have written to Fidum, the new managing agent for the new owners. I asked it about its application to the building safety fund for the removal of unsafe cladding. I have received no response, but Fidum now tells residents that it missed the closing date of 30 June for the second application because it is still waiting to have eligibility—

UPDATE: Pro-leaseholder amendment to Fire Safety Bill approved in House of Lords. Now goes back to Commons [Barry Gardiner denounces cladding 'fraudsters' - McPartland-Smith amendment to Fire Safety Bill must get Lords' support today]

 "We have more rights buying

a bloody toaster than buying our own flats"

 

UPDATE:   The House of Lords passed the McPartland-Smith amendment 326 to 248 so it now goes back to the House of Commons. (See below). Maximum pressure must now be put on Tory MPs.

The full extent of the cladding crisis became clear at last night's meeting of Brent and Camden campaigners on the cladding crisis attended by Brent's three Members of Parliament, Dawn Butler, Barry Gardiner and Tulip Siddiq.

Leaseholder after leaseholder told their stories of desperate financial circumstances and even bankruptcy as a result of massive bills for remediation works and waking fire watches, worthless homes as a result of the lack of an EWS1 certificate, and the enormous emotional stress caused by their circumstances and the lack of government action.

Barry Gardiner told the meeting that he couldn't think of  any important agency anywhere in the world that would tell a fraudster that those he had defrauded would have to pay his bill.  Developers and builders were going into liquidation and setting up shadow companies in order to avoid their responsiibilities. He said people must understand that the system is breaking down at the local level of building control. Responsibility for building control had been shifted from local councils to private companies that, competing for business with each other, did as few checks as they could get away with, thus favoring developers.  They then blame each other while meanwhile developers and contractors go into liquidation in so that they don't have to deal with the repercussions of their own shoddy work.

He added that that Labour was doing its best but it was essential that campaigners created as much noise as possible in order to get noticed.

Dawn Butler said she had been taking up the issue of funds not being available for remediation  of blocks of under 18 mentres height, this applied to a third of thse in Brent. She had heard of people who lived next door to buildings with cladding not being able to get an EWS1 certificiate.  She said the government in the first instance must take control and responsibility for addressing the crisis and then claim the costs back from developers. She said that she would continue to push and pursue this with the Secertary of State but as the Tories had a majority of 80 they would only do soemething if enough pressure was applied, petitions and other actions make a huge difference.

A vital issue discussed was the Fire Safety Bill,  going through the House of Lords today (Wednesday).  It would put the burden of remediation works directly on leaseholders rather than freeholders or developers.  An amendment  (McPartland-Smith) has been put that would then bring the Bill back to the Commons.

Sir Peter Bottomley of the All Party Parliamentary Group for leasehold and commonhold reform has said:

“The Fire Safety Bill in its present form places an automatic, unchallengeable financial burden on residential leaseholders for building safety remediation costs, even in circumstances where a Lease may have excluded the obligation.

“The proposed amendments to the Bill are intended to protect leaseholders from being solely responsible for these costs. The Bill strengthens landlord/freeholder’s legal right over leaseholders. The amendments provide for more balanced liability for costs. The amendments should be supported. The alternative wrongly and disproportionally disadvantages innocent leaseholders. Many are unable to pay and are frightened.”

 While the amendment does not deliver all that campaigners want it is essential it gets through the Lords today.