MPs demand cladding cost cover for BTL landlords

Leaseholders would be shielded from remediation costs, but too many “will fall through the cracks of the government’s piecemeal measures,” the all-party committee for the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) said in a report today (11 March).

The report is the committee’s response to plans to fund the removal of flammable cladding remaining in buildings, as set out by Michael Gove, Secretary of State for DLUC, in the House of Commons on 10 January.

Gove said: “No leaseholder living in a building above 11m will ever face any costs for fixing dangerous cladding.

“They are blameless and it is morally wrong that they should be asked to pay for the price”.

He said the Building Safety Bill would be amended, in order to double the amount of time building owners and leaseholders can seek compensation from building developers for safety defects. It would go from 15 years to 30 years.

Both manufacturing firms of dangerous cladding and insulation and housebuilders would be forced to cover these costs under Gove’s plan.

But landlords who own more than one property are exempt.

The LUHC Committee said that they disagree with the government “that only BTL landlords with one other property should be included in the statutory protections for leaseholders”.

It argued that alternative options exist to exclude wealthy property tycoons, without the inevitable impact on landlords “of more modest means”, and called for an “impact assessment” before any government action.

The Committee further called for a Comprehensive Building Safety Fund, or an upgrade in current funding proposals, to ensure the cost of remediating safety defects is covered in instances where the “original ‘polluter’ cannot be traced are covered”.

It wanted leaseholders to be compensated for costs already paid out.

Ben Beadle, chief executive of the National Residential Landlords Association, said: “The government’s decision to exclude BTL 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.

“Ministers now need to stop dragging their feet on this issue, accept the committee’s conclusions and end its unjust and inexcusable policy”.