Leaseholders on a Harold Wood estate facing huge cladding bills have been given some respite, as the process to secure funding for the work has been paused following government intervention.
Residents living in four of the five blocks on the Kings Park estate, managed by Wildheart Residential Management, were in the process of being issued Section 20 consultation notices, due to their homes having been assessed to be covered in flammable cladding.
The notices outline the estimated costs of the work involved and kickstart the consultation, due to run until the end of March.
While a government support scheme has been established to fund blocks lumbered with flammable cladding, none of the Wildheart buildings concerned qualify due to being less than 11 metres tall.
The government says this is because homes beneath this height are “very unlikely” to require remediation, with measures such as fire alarms suggested as typically more appropriate.
Suzy Spilling of the Non-Qualifying Leaseholders Group, a campaign group looking specifically at issues with leaseholder protections, previously told the Recorder a comprehensive solution is needed "for all buildings of all heights and all defects".
Due to this policy, the Kings Park estate's developer, Countryside, is not obliged to cover the costs, meaning the funding falls at the feet of the leaseholders.
As an indicator of the impact this would have, one Baneberry Lodge resident believed their share of the cost, if invoiced, will be £20,800.
The MP for Hornchurch and Upminster, Julia Lopez, has however now announced that, after discussions with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC), Wildheart has consented to a request to pause the process for recovering the costs from leaseholders.
Noting she is “grateful” to Wildheart for the move, Ms Lopez said: “This is a hugely welcome step that leaseholders and I have worked hard to achieve.
“The department will now be conducting a review of the position relating to the proposed remediation works and will provide an opinion as to how new measures, introduced by the government to avoid leaseholders being held liable for such works, apply in this case.
“My team and I will continue to closely monitor this case for progress and will keep leaseholders informed of further developments.”
Steve Bulkan, a resident in Primula Court, praised Ms Lopez’s support following the update.
He said he now hopes the government department agrees that “no resident should be paying for any cladding works or any fire safety issues, regardless of how low or high flats are”.
“It’s down to developers and the manufacturers to get this dealt with, and it’s not for leaseholders to put their hands in their pockets and use their hard-earned money for something like this,” he added.
A spokesperson for DLUHC reiterated that buildings under 11 metres are considered to be “very unlikely” to require remediation.
However, they added: “Where work is necessary, we would always expect freeholders to seek to recover costs from those who were responsible for building unsafe homes.”
They confirmed the process of securing costs was asked to be paused, while the department reviews this particular case.
A spokesperson for Wildheart, on behalf of its freehold client, said: “Because of the individual features of these buildings, they do not qualify for government funding for fire safety defects. The original developer, Countryside Properties, has declined to cover the costs and cannot be forced to do so.
“As such, the only source of funding for this necessary work is the leaseholders.
To get the latest news and features direct to your inbox, sign up for our Romford Recorder newsletter here.
“DLUHC has requested that we pause invoicing leaseholders while they consider whether there are other options. We are happy to comply with that request for a short period. We will however be letting our leaseholders know what the costs will be, to give them as much notice as possible.
“We look forward to hearing further from DLUHC as soon as possible.”
Countryside declined to comment when approached by the Recorder.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here