Ministers proposed that landlords renting out more than one leasehold property should be excluded from the government’s commitment that no leaseholder should have to pay for the removal of unsafe cladding following the Grenfell tragedy.
In its report ‘Building Safety: Remediation and Funding’, the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (LUHC) select committee responded to plans outlined by Michael Gove, Secretary of State of Levelling Up, Housing and Communities earlier this year.
In the report, published today, the committee said buy-to-let landlords were no more to blame than other leaseholders for historic building safety defects.
The NRLA, which gave evidence to the committee, argued it was completely unfair that individual landlords should be the only leaseholders not to be covered by government’s plans to finance the removal of dangerous cladding.
The committee said it had heard from landlords who had found themselves outside of the scope of the protections and who invested in properties to support their children, to provide income after being made redundant, to help pay for the costs of caring for relatives, or to provide for their retirement facing bills they could not afford.
This was supported by a reference in the report to the story of one landlord who had used compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority to invest in flats after the murder of their husband in the 7/7 London bombings which occurred in 2005. This landlord told the committee that they now faced “vast bills” due to the proposals.
Ben Beadle, chief executive of the NRLA, said: “We are delighted that the committee agrees with us. The government’s decision to exclude buy-to-let landlords renting more than one property from its scheme is unfair and unacceptable. As the committee rightly notes landlords are no more to blame than other leaseholders for historic building safety defects.
Clive Betts, chair of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (LUHC) Committee, said: “While we welcome Michael Gove’s commitment to fixing these issues, we are concerned there are gaps in the Secretary of State’s proposals which risk leaving leaseholders to pick up the bill.
“The government should be looking beyond developers and manufacturers to contribute to the costs of fixing the building safety crisis. We recommend the government identify all relevant parties who played a role in this crisis, such as product suppliers, installers, contractors and sub-contractors, and legally require them to pay towards fixing individual faults and ensure that they also contribute to collective funding for building safety remediation.
“Insurers should also be required to contribute to funds for remediation.”
