Flat owner hit with £65,000 fire safety cladding bill as block too short for funding

Flat owners are being hit with huge bills for fire safety work because their blocks are not tall enough to qualify for funding announced after the Grenfell Tower fire.

The previous government launched the Building Safety Act after the 2017 fire which killed 72 people. But the rules do not apply to buildings under 11m (36ft) or five storeys high.

Some lawyers claim the new law was “rushed” but the government says it covers the majority of leaseholders and it will continue to review the legislation.

Paramedic Tom DeRonde received a £65,000 bill because his flat is in a three-storey building and says he faces bankruptcy.

“I had to take a month off work with stress. There’s not been a day when I’ve not thought about cladding,” he told the BBC.

It is estimated there are 1.3 million leasehold flats in low-rise blocks, under 11m high in England, according to the End Our Cladding Scandal campaign.

Tom bought his flat in Luton in 2018 with money he had saved from serving in the army. He said when he came home to a bill for £65,000 he was “absolutely shocked”.

The invoice from his landlord was his legal share of the costs to make the building fireproof. “I thought it was a typo to be honest,” said Tom.

Then he learnt the building’s height meant he was a “non-qualifying leaseholder” and would be liable to pay for fire safety work.

“The government says for buildings under 11m, the risk can be mitigated by other means, like using fire alarms and sprinkler systems but in my case, that’s not true,” explained Tom.

“I’ve had two fire assessments both saying the cladding is dangerous and needs to be removed, and the price, which they also said would be lower for smaller buildings, is extortionate. I can’t pay,” he added.

After complaining to the building’s owners, Tom expects the bill to be reduced but is yet to find out by how much.

Tom had planned to sell the flat to buy a family home but can’t. “It’s ruining my life and I’m facing bankruptcy,” he said.

The Department for Housing told the BBC that owners of buildings under 11m should not pass on the costs of fixing historical safety defects to leaseholders.

But the law does not prevent people like Tom being billed for unlimited amounts of money when the developers are no longer around or landlords cannot afford the remediation costs.

Liz Ramsden is an expert in leasehold property at Knights and told the BBC she believes the Building Safety Act was drafted too quickly.

“The intention was that no leaseholder would have to pay but in reality we are finding a lot of leaseholders are having to pay huge sums of money.

“There was very little consultation and because of that we have these gaps in the legislation and people are falling through,” she said.

Even in buildings above 11m the rules fail to protect many leaseholders.

Homeowners with Islamic mortgages or three or more properties also do not benefit from the full protections.

This is something Martin Batty, who has an Islamic mortgage, only discovered when he put his one-bedroom flat up for sale.

He said his lawyer explained the way Islamic home purchase plans are structured – to comply with Sharia law which does not allow paying interest – means he falls outside the scope of the act.

“It feels really unfair. I feel like I’m being discriminated against,” he said.

“To find out that I’m a non-qualifying leaseholder just because I’ve got an Islamic home purchase plan is a huge kick in the teeth. It’s really upsetting and is a huge let down.”

The government told the BBC Islamic interest free loans secured against properties were very rare.

But Martin said he can’t sell his flat because mortgage providers will not lend against it and solicitors won’t advise on non-qualifying leases.

Suzy Spilling and her husband Colin invested in four rental properties to fund their retirement – including two flats in Salford “mortgaged to the hilt”.

These two flats are in a building where lots of the cladding has been found to be unsafe.

The government will fund the removal but because the couple have more than three properties they too are non-qualifying leaseholders and will have to pay towards the costs of making the tower block fire-safe.

“Everything we have planned for would be out the window,” said Suzy. “How were we going to raise the funds needed? We could be on the hook for £100,000 for each of our two apartments.”

It is estimated there are 385,000 flats in England owned by non-qualifying leaseholders like Suzy and Colin, according to the End Our Cladding Scandal.

The couple have gone back to work to save money “but there’s no way we’re going to be able to cover the amount we’re going to have to pay,” she added.

“Our lives are on hold. We don’t know when it’s ever going to end.”

Lawyer Mrs Ramsden said: “There’s been a 40% drop in leasehold transactions because of problems with the act. It urgently needs to be looked at so we can make it work better for everybody.”

A government spokesperson told the BBC it would consider changes to the Building Safety Act and review how it can offer greater protection from costs.