Quintain expectedly refused 'crucial' second tranche of Building Safety Fund monies for Forum House works. They will appeal.

 

Quintain Ltd have written to the residents and leaseholders of Forum House to annouce that the second tranche of funds for remedial works to the facade of the the Wembley Park building has been refused.

They wrote:

Our priority has always been to ensure that you as residents remain safe in your homes and that leaseholders of Forum House you receive the appropriate financial support from the Government’s Building Safety Fund (BSF) where required.

Since applying to the dedicated Building Safety Fund on your behalf and submitting the required evidence in December 2020, we were informed in May 2021 that Forum House is eligible to receive financial support from the BSF. We received the first portion of this funding in September 2021 which allowed us to align a team of designers and contractors with a trusted supply chain to plan and prepare the works. We submitted our final application to the Department of Levelling Up, Housing, and Communities (DLUHC) in October 2021 for the remainder of the funding we sought on your behalf in order to begin construction.

Unfortunately, we have received notice from the DLUHC that our application for this crucial second portion of funding has ultimately been declined, prohibiting us from continuing with the project at this stage. Although full funding for the project was not formally guaranteed by the DLUHC, we were not expecting this decision. Since receiving the first portion of funds to finance the initiation of the project, we received no indication that our application for further support from the BSF would be unsuccessful.

Throughout this process we have worked closely with a dedicated case officer at the Greater London Authority (GLA) and BSF since May 2021, both of which have advised our team and worked with us to ensure our application followed the requirements set by the DLUHC.

We will now be appealing this decision with the support of industry consultants and will advise you on any further updates. 

 Quintain have also put on hold work on the timber decking in the building pending assessment of new guidance.

They conclude:

We would like to re-enforce that Forum House was constructed to meet building regulations at the time it was completed in 2008. An independent fire officer, who undertook an intrusive survey on the building in late 2020, deemed Forum House safe and not in need of further fire safety measures that other buildings have had to implement throughout this remediation process, such as additional fire alarms or a waking watch.

Our priority remains to ensure that you as residents remain safe in your homes and are receiving the Government support that we believe Forum House is eligible for, should façade remediation be required.

Local MPs back End Our Cladding Scandal campaigners in Opposition Day Debate - Quadrant Court and Forum House residents hear bad news

 

Shepherd Construction's Capitol Way development as visualised 8 years ago(see Barry Gardiner's speech below)

Months of campaigning by leaseholders trapped in their buildings for want of an EWS1 safety certificate following the tragic Grenfell fire bore fruit yesterday when the Opposition  held a debate on the motion:

Unsafe Cladding – Protecting Tenants and Leaseholders

 

That this House
calls on the Government to urgently establish the extent of dangerous cladding and prioritise buildings according to risk;
provide upfront funding to ensure cladding remediation can start immediately;
protect leaseholders and taxpayers from the cost by pursuing those responsible for the cladding crisis;
and update Parliament once a month in the form of a Written Ministerial Statement by the Secretary of State.

 

Lucie Gutfreund, a tireless local campaigner, co- leader of End Our Cladding Scandal and founder of Brent Cladding Action Group,  and a leaseholder in South Kilburn, told Wembley Matters today:

 

The End Our Cladding Scandal campaigners are pleased with the result of the Opposition Day debate and the resulting vote on protecting leaseholders from unfair costs of remediating unsafe buildings. Even if the approved Labour motion is non-binding, it puts pressure on the Government to abide by the motion in the best way they can. Brent MPs Barry Gardiner and Tulip Siddiq spoke passionately about protecting their constituents and pushing for those who are responsible for the cladding crisis to be made to pay to make buildings safe. Across Brent, thousands of leaseholders live in unsafe buildings and are facing bankruptcy from the extortionate amounts being asked. The highest amount we have heard of is approximately £100,000 per flat in a housing association development in Alperton. No one has this kind of money; this situation is breaking not just leaseholders' bank accounts, but also residents’ mental health.

 

She urged leaseholders of affected buildings in Brent to get in touch with the local cladding action group on the closed Facebook group    https://www.facebook.com/groups/713506399518392

    or email:

brentcladding@gmail.com

 

These are the speeches from Barry Gardiner, Tulip Siddiq and Bob Blackman in support of the campaign’s demands:

Tulip Siddiq (Labour Hampstead & Kilburn)

The pain of the Grenfell fire was felt very deeply in my constituency of Hampstead and Kilburn. Those who died were our neighbours and our friends. Some survivors were rehoused in Camden and Brent and became part of our community. Then, one Friday night, shortly after the fire, thousands of my constituents had to be evacuated from the Chalcots estate in Swiss Cottage after it emerged that they had ACM cladding that was near-identical to that on Grenfell Tower. I ask all those on the Government Benches to consider what it must be like to live in a property that they know could face the same fate as Grenfell, and where a 24/7 waking watch patrol is required to make sure that the building is not on fire. That is the reality for many of my constituents living in the new-builds in and around West Hampstead Square, many blocks in south Kilburn and other parts of Brent, and over 70 private sector buildings in Camden that still have dangerous ACM cladding.

Perhaps the worst part of it is that the residents—the leaseholders—who had no part in creating this crisis, are being forced to pay to fix it and to pay for the waking watches, the fire safety measures and the replacement of the unsafe cladding that threatens their lives. One constituent in Kensal Rise who bought their flat using the Government’s Help to Buy loan scheme wrote to me recently to say that they are being made to pay for cladding remediation works. As she so aptly puts it, it is

“a disgusting abuse that a government would aim to help so many and then bankrupt those they aimed to help by not legally protecting leaseholders from these costs”.

To add insult to injury, none of these people can sell their homes. Many others are unable to sell simply because they are being forced to wait many years for an EWS1 form. Lucie Gutfreund, a constituent of mine who co-founded the End our Cladding Scandal campaign, told me that she and others are effectively trapped, facing crippling bills, and that the mental turmoil is ruining their lives and the lives of so many.

Grenfell was a tragedy. The Government’s response has been a travesty. I am urging Ministers to do what they can and what they should have done a long time ago: make these buildings safe, shield leaseholders from the costs and make those who installed dangerous cladding pay. Anything less is unforgivable.

 

Barry Gardiner (Labour Brent North)

Residents trapped in unsafe buildings are fed up with sympathy; they want action—certainly those in Elizabeth House, Damask Court, Capitol Way, and many other developments in my constituency do. They know that this debate should not just be about who pays. Lord Greenhalgh has admitted that the Government’s building safety fund will not even cover one third of the cladding defects, and residents in Capitol Way know that this debate should not just be about cladding. This is about a whole range of fire safety defects that have turned their homes into a building site for the past three years, and threaten to do so for three years more.

The Minister started the debate by saying that the Government “absolutely expect” building owners to do the right thing. Three and a half years on—really? The Government hold developers responsible. The developers hold the construction companies responsible. The construction companies hold the building control inspectors responsible, and the building control inspectors say that the Government privatised the system of building control, creating a downward spiral of monitoring and control, as inspection became a competition about who would let the builders get away with the most short cuts. Nobody blames my constituents, yet they are now paying for all those mistakes. They are unable to move house, unable to sell their homes, and unable to get on with their lives. They are trapped in unsafe accommodation, with no end in sight.

In advance of this debate I was sent documents that show that many of the fire safety defects that exist in the Capitol Way development were not mistakes. I have reason to believe that that was known by the construction company, Shepherd Construction, by the approved inspectors, Head Projects Building Control, which is now in liquidation, and by the project managers for the development, who were from CBRE. Those defects were known about and recorded in reports that were prepared for CBRE by its quality assurance agent. Those reports were then doctored. Evidence suggests that that took place before residents were moved into those unsafe properties.

Given that there was full knowledge of the statutory breaches of the fire safety elements of building regulations, it is clear that life was put at risk. I believe that therefore constituted a criminal offence, and that withholding such information from leaseholders, who purchased their apartments in good faith, was fraud by false representation. There was a duty to disclose that information, but no such disclosure was made. In my view, that means my constituents were victims of fraud.

In July 2019, the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government issued a written statement to say that all cladding remediation would be completed by June 2020. Seven months on, instead of expecting building owners and the construction industry to do the right thing, the Government should wake up, impose a windfall levy on the industry, and get this work done.

Bob Blackman (Conservative Harrow East)

It is a pleasure to follow the Chairman of the Select Committee, who spoke about the inquiries that we have done—seemingly endlessly—over the past six and a half years. Three and a half years after the Grenfell tragedy, we still have leaseholders living in unsaleable, un-mortgageable, uninsurable, unsafe properties, and that is a disgrace that we have to put right. Progress on remediation has unfortunately been slow. It picked up last year, which is good news, but it has been slow and we still have buildings with unsafe cladding, which makes the homes almost impossible to sell, should someone so wish.

This is a complicated debate and a complicated issue, because we have ACM and non-ACM cladding and we have other fire safety issues, to which the Chairman of the Select Committee has referred. The Government, however, are responsible for two things that are important in this process: first, the testing regime, which is not fit for purpose and needs fundamental reform to ensure that cladding and other things that are put in buildings are safe; and secondly, the building regulations that control them.

We have a problem with building ownership, which is complex and unclear, with many buildings owned by offshore trusts and other organisations. We have to deal with those particular issues, but it is fundamental that leaseholders should not have to pay a penny piece towards the cost of remediating unsafe cladding.

The Government have rightly come forward with the Fire Safety Bill and the Building Safety Bill, and I sat through the pre-legislative scrutiny on the Building Safety Bill. The problem with the Building Safety Bill is that it will take a very long time before it comes into law and is actually put into practice. If the Government are against the amendments to the Fire Safety Bill tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith) and for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland), they are honour bound to come forward with alternative amendments that meet the fundamental principle that leaseholders should not pay.

The key is this: what do we do for the people who are in this position? Surveys cost an enormous amount of money. The industry cannot have the capacity at the moment to rectify all the damage that has been done. What is clear is that we need to ensure that the building owners and those responsible foot the bill. We have to end self-certification of buildings. It is unacceptable that building developers can just self-certify that their buildings are safe and are within the scope. We have to make sure that the Government extend the building safety fund into next year, increase the amount of money available, and make sure that the work is done—if necessary, taking over these buildings, remediating them, and then turning them into commonhold so that the leaseholders know that they have a safe building and are not paying a penny.

Bob Blackman, along with other Tories, did not vote in the denate. Dawn Butler Mo, joined her fellow Brent MPs in voting for the motion.

Meanwhile leaseholders and shared ownership residents at the Quadrant Court and Forum House buildings in Wembley Park, the first new builds to be completed in the regeneration, heard the bad news from landlords First Port that the fire risk survey of the blocks could only achieve a ‘B2’ EWS1.  First Port said: 

 

As you know, we recently commissioned an intrusive survey to find out more information about the external wall system at Quadrant Court. This information is needed as part of the process to obtain an EWS1 form for your building, as a result of the Government’s changing guidance on building and fire safety. 

 

The intrusive survey has now been completed and an independent fire engineer has reviewed the findings. The survey has advised that there are concerns regarding certain aspects of the external wall system. This means that the specialist engineer can only grant a ‘B2’ EWS1 form at the moment, which unfortunately won’t satisfy a mortgage lender. 

 

However, the independent engineer has advised that there is no requirement for any additional fire safety measures for your building. This means there is no need for additional fire alarm installation, or a waking watch, which would have incurred significant cost. We have been advised that a further survey of the external wall system would be prudent with the possibility of raising the B2 rating to a B1, this will satisfy most mortgage lenders. This survey will be undertaken by the simplest means and carried out in the next couple of weeks.

 

In the event that the rating stays at B2, this would mean that the external wall system should be remediated in order to meet the latest safety standards. Once remediation is undertaken this should then satisfy the EWS1 requirements and enable an EWS1 form of a higher rating, which mortgage lenders should then accept, to be granted for your building. I have received clarification from Quintain that Quadrant Court was built to BBA certified standards upon completion in 2008. 

 

These measures are being undertaken as a result of recent changes in regulations made by the Government. 

 

Building Safety Fund 

 

As you know, Forum House and Quadrant Court were both registered with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) for the Building Safety Fund and we are delighted that Forum House has been invited to apply for funding. To put this into context 2,821 buildings were registered last year and only 294 have so far been invited to apply for funding, Forum House is in this group. 519 have submitted all the required information to MHCLG but are waiting for the invitation to apply, Quadrant Court is in this group. There doesn’t seem to be any reason other than time and due process that would dictate why one building over another is invited to apply so we are anticipating an invitation for Quadrant Court over the coming weeks. It is important to note that we will wait to understand the outcome of this application before starting any remediation works which could incur costs that we will turn to the fund to cover, however, the second intrusive survey can go ahead as planned.

Residents are in disrepute with First Port over charges for the works and made it clear that residents agreeing to pay for an intrusive survey  did not mean they accepted that they were responsible for paying for any consequential remediation works. At Quadrant Court work was needed on lifts and 44 fire doors had to be removed and refitted to be compliant according to the risk assessment.  

 

What are the true costs of living in Quintain's Wembley Park development?

The PR sell

One of the costs to residents of living in the Wembley Park development is of course disruption during events as experienced at an extreme level over the Bank Holiday weekend. Critics argue that by choosing to live on top of the national stadium residents could expect no different - but what about other costs?

The Wembley Park Residents' Association has been in talks with Cllr Butt, Quintain and housing associations over rapidly rising service charges at two of the first buildings in what was orginally named Wembley City. Residents of Quadrant Court and Forum House have seen service charges rise from £90 per calendar month to £200 pcm.

It appears that residents are being asked to contribute to the costs associated with the Wembley Park Estate, which is a form of private 'public realm' as well as maintenance etc of their own blocks. The WPRA has requested Audit Reports, the Asset Management Report and detailed breakdown of the changes from First Port, the management agents. They have also asked for Quintain to provide detailed maps of how the money is being apportioned on the estate. 

Residents claimed that they were being double-charged: Service Charge and Council Tax. Cllr Butt undertook to look at the case for a Council Tax rebate which would subsidise Wembley Park Estate costs.

Clearly we must await details of any such scheme but there is bound to be opposition if that is seen, following the Wembley steps affair, as another example of Brent Council in effect handing money over to Quintain.

Should Wembley residents be picking up the bill for Quintain’s mistakes?

Guest blog by ' A Wembley Park Resident'.

The first residential block in Quintain’s rapidly expanding Wembley Park empire, Forum House was a flagship development at the time it opened back in 2009.   Along with neighbouring Quadrant Court which opened a year later, these developments were intended to establish Wembley Park’s reputation for “destination living” at an affordable price.   These early developments were mixed tenure - with private leaseholders and renters, shared owners and social renters all moving in to the new blocks. But as Quintain rolling out new developments at a rate of knots, some of which feature no properties at social rent, they appear to have taken their eye off the ball when it comes to ensuring that their original residents remain satisfied.  Most of their efforts are going into marketing newer luxury properties, and promoting their much-vaunted Tipi scheme, based on a build-to-rent model.

Quintain implicitly acknowledged that the managing agents they had originally contracted to oversee the developments were under-performing when they took the contract away from LRM and awarded it to rivals First Port.  But the full scale of LRM’s failure only became clear subsequently, after they left a vast deficit (thought to be just short of £100,000) in the Forum House annual accounts for 2016-17. Despite already high-levels of service charge, LRM had apparently failed to make any provision for a sinking fund - necessary for prudent management of any estate - and had consistently overspent despite failing to address recurring problems in servicing the estate, including the regularly faulty boilers and pumps.

So who is to pay for the shortfall?   LRM has now pocketed its fees and the accounts have been signed off.   Quintain might yet to be entitled to query whether LRM delivered on its contractual obligations, and potentially recover some of their cash.   But in the meantime, it’s been left to residents to cough-up for a significant “balancing charge” running into hundreds of pounds each, whilst at the same time being hit with major service charge increases from First Port (using LRM’s questionable figures as a baseline guide).   

In his usual suave manner, Quintain boss James Saunders promised WPRA’s febrile Wider Residents Meeting in June that the company would undertake a review of what monies could be reclaimed from LRM, which he anticipated might take three months.   But when the residents have asked for a progress update, no further reassurances have been given. Residents fear they’ll still be on the hook for the costs of having been failed by the freeholder and managing agents. Isn’t it time, they are asking, that Quintain paid the price for its own mistakes?

Forum and Quadrant residents face huge service charge increases

Forum House at the weekend

Residents of Forum House and Quadrant Court, two of the first Quintain developments at Wembley Park face service charges of 47% according to well informed sources. First Port who manage the development spokesperson  denied the figure this morning and told me that the increases were actually 2.7% for Forum House and 5.1% for Quadrant Court.  He added that First Port had only been agents since April 2017 and the amount depended on what baseline was being used.

Forum House is presently undergoing works for removal and replacement of cladding following the Grenfell fire but the spokesman said that as the buildings were also most 10 years old that maintenance  would be needed anyway.

Forum and Quadrant are different from the later Tipi developments in that they are mixed tenure including housing provided by Genesis and Family Mosaic.  Clearly the increases will be less affordable for housing association tenants.  There are fears that the increases have been made to bring charges in line with Quintain's latest developments.

First Port is holding a site surgery today and in apparent contradiction of the spokesperson admit that the increase is 'significant' this year. I have sought clarification from First Port. The discrepancy may be due to the fact that First Port is switching from a financial year budget to a calendar year, charging 5% more during the period of adjustment for only a 9 month period.

The Development Manager of the develpment meanwhile does not seem to deny the extent of the  service charge increase but justifies it on the following grounds:

We are adjusting the budget to the real expenses of the development and the necessary works that have to be carried out as per examples below:

-          Fire equipment: A provision for ad hoc works including a replacement of the fire panel, replacement of fire doors and magnetic locks. As these are required ad hoc works for this year only so we anticipate a lowering of this cost line year.

-          Electricity: This budget is previous years metered usage, however we have now procured a contracted rate through First Port bulk purchasing. We will be able to achieve rates which are well below normal domestic rates and highly competitive against commercial tariffs. We have carried out a comprehensive assessment of the lighting on site and were aiming to replace current lighting with LED equivalents as part of the major works being carried out in order to reduce energy costs over the long term. Due to funding we are unfortunately unable to do this at present, however it will be undertaken in the near future.

-          Reserves: We plan to appoint a chartered surveyor to carry out a detailed Asset Management Plan for the development to ensure that future annual collections are set at sufficient levels to fully provide for all future major works and that collections are allocated to the correct schedules. We have however budgeted for an estimated required amount to be allocated to reserve funds.

-          Cleaning external areas: This is budgeted in for inner court yard cleaning, including all paving, section walls inside, steps etc. (steam and chemical). Also perimeter clean outside areas including pavement sections, plant surrounds, reception entrance.

-          Window cleaning: We have made provision for the external cleaning of windows and balconies throughout the development. This has not been budgeted previously but is needed enhancement that will deliver a much improved appearance to the scheme.

-          Building, Terrorism, Property Owner Liability Insurance: Provision for insurance for period 30 Sept 2018 to December 2018. This has previously been separately recharged to residents in the form of an additional levy.

-          Lifts: We have based our budget figure on actual previous expenditure allowing for 4 passenger lifts, this covers the relevant maintenance contracts, lift telephone lines, lift insurance and ad-hoc repairs should they be required. Our budget allows for our premium service lift contract which we are able to procure at a lower than usual rate via the Quintain Wembley wide agreement. This also incorporates the outstanding aesthetic repairs to all lifts.

-          Ground maintenance: We have allowed for a provision for an annual grounds maintenance contract and the regular  maintenance of the irrigation system as well as improvements to the landscaping in the budget.

Additional night time fire patrols at Forum House, Wembley Park

FirstPort, the property services company for Forum House at Wembley Park have issued the following advice to leaseholders and residents:

Fire Safety and ACM Cladding on part of Forum House

The following information has been issued to keep you fully abreast of the current position in respect of the building in the unlikely event of a fire at the property.

Following the tragedy at Grenfell Tower we have carried out some reviews of the building that we manage, in line with Government (DCLG) advice.

Through this review it has been established that some of the trim on the roof section and parts of the facia of The North Core (above the reception) are partially clad in a silver aluminium cladding material which is referred to as ACM. This relates to a small proportion of the building façade and at this juncture should not give rise to undue concern albeit that we are considering the options and actions open to us.

On receiving this information we contacted the Fire and Rescue Services and also notified the building’s insurers to establish if any immediate action was required. Initial findings are that no immediate action is necessary.

You may have heard it reported that the Government has produced an updated document, setting out fresh guidelines for testing procedure/s. This includes testing the entire cladding system and not just the exterior cladding material.
This is important as the systems behind this cladded facia can be key to the structure’s performance in the event of a fire, and the nature of this system can differ significantly from building to building.

As a result we need to consider the further guidance provided from these results before we can definitively conclude if any action or replacement is to be required on Forum House.

In the interim we pro-actively invited the Fire Brigade to carry out an inspection of the building in order to ascertain if there was anything further we can do to enhance fire safety at Forum House. Thankfully they were happy with the processes and strategy we have in place and were satisfied that we operate the development correctly and efficiently in terms of fire safety.

Nevertheless, taking into account the guidance issued by the Fire Brigade at other affected comparable buildings, we have instructed additional patrols of the building by the onsite staff during the night time and I can confirm that these have begun. These will stay in place until further notice.

I would like to take this opportunity to remind you all that a “stay put” policy is in operation at Forum House in the unlikely event of a fire. Homes and developments such as Forum House are built with fire compartmentation, which is designed to resist the passage of fire between the walls and doors giving ample time for the fire services to arrive.

In this way, the fire service are given plenty of time to assess risks and ensure that, if needed, any evacuation is managed in a safe and orderly fashion.

In addition, the communal corridors and escape passages at Forum House are equipped with smoke ventilation systems to improve conditions for means of escape and fire-fighting by limiting obscuration and toxicity in the common escape routes. These systems are tested regularly and in line with manufacturers recommendations.

We understand that there may be concerns around the “stay put” policy at this time. The following remains the guidance from the London Fire Brigade:

“If there is a fire inside your apartment leave, closing the door behind you and call 999. If there is a fire elsewhere in the building, and not inside your own apartment their advice is to stay put. The Fire Service will carry out an evacuation of the other apartments if necessary.”

Further information can be found on http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/staying-in-or-going- out.asp.

We also ask that residents ensure they remove anything that is combustible on their balconies. This is of course a stipulation in your lease but as is apparent from walking around the building there are a number of residents that continue to breach this lease requirement. Barbeques and storing items other than small garden furniture are examples of such breaches. In light of the above, we would ask that you comply with this instruction as a matter of urgency.

Fire safety should be at the forefront of everyone’s mind, and to that end please ensure you are comfortable with the fire procedures, know where the nearest fire exit is and make sure the smoke alarms in your apartment are tested regularly and replaced every 10 years. It is also good practice to close all your apartment’s internal doors when you go to bed at night.

We will advise if any specific action or change is needed and we will continue to keep you updated in relation to this matter. Meanwhile, we will also continue to track any findings or new guidelines and take the appropriate actions.

Finally, should you have any further general questions or queries we would in the first instance refer you to the enclosed statement and guidance relating to fire safety. However, should you have any questions that are not answered by this document then please do not hesitate to contact us.