If this was a car manufacturer, they would have to recall the vehicles. The developer should be forced to buy back the property at the rate the buyer took it at.
They'd have to make arrangements to upgrade the building within a certain amount of time like 6 months or something and, if not completed within that time, buy back the property at the current market price if the building did meet the safety standard in question. In the meantime, at least until the building can be certified to the standards it was supposed to be certified to when it was finished, they should be made financially liable for any possible loss of property or life if the cladding is proven to be at fault, and with a retroactivity clause to also cover any incident that meets these requirements that may've taken place before the time of the discovery of the problem
I know that a lot of people watching this won't understand the ins and outs of what Evan is saying. However: This is an excellently researched, beautifully analysed and clearly explained situation. *This video should be required viewing for anyone trying to buy a house in England and Wales at the moment.* IT'S IMPORTANT. Many, many, many thanks, Evan.
Just to lose it for no reason and stand there without any passport . Holly shit i am happy the arnt in the EU anymore . The UK has mutated into any even bigger shit hole .
I am a retired Professional Civil Engineer(US). The liability for an Engineer to certify any building was too great for me to even consider doing that kind of inspections. I've seen crappy materials problems, time and time again since the 1960s. That is why I built my house myself. I spent an extra $1000 to use flame resistant materials. I would think that the flammable siding could be treated with fireproofing. You've done a very good job on this video. Good Luck, Rick
Hi there! No pressure if you don't have the time or don't feel like it, but if you're willing, I'd love to learn from any elaboration you'd like to give about fireproof materials in home construction. I'm self-building my own tiny home trailer and then mountain tiny home over the next few years, and operating as frugally as possible (currently live in a truck and will be building using student loans with mostly salvaged materials lol), but I need to invest heavily in good fire safety, particularly for the mountain home since my speck of land is in a high fire risk area. It's hard to get useful information online about materials choices without running into a lot of marketing articles biased in favor of different products. I'm friends with some engineers but none are civ or into home materials much haha. I'm planning to learn a fair bit of basic DIY bricklaying/masonry along the way and I'm willing to do hard/lengthy work in order to use materials that work well and hopefully don't cost a ton, but I'm also willing to save and invest wherever it's wisest. I'd be delighted to learn from any wisdom you'd want to share, and again of course no pressure at all to humor me the favor! Thanks for the work you've done and for the ethics you clearly hold, and I hope you're doing well!
@@ItsAsparageese Look at the latest building codes in California. They have "fire proof" requirements. Build with brick and have a steel or clay tile roof. Keep trees and brush well back from the house. A sprinkler system that soaks the house and lawn around it will help. IT would need to be able to work without electricity for several hours. Good Luck, Rick
the cladding is to layers of aluminum with a flammable foam insulation several inches thick sandwiched between the aluminum . The foam was expanded with air so every bubble in it has oxygen in it, but the bubbles are not connected . The material can burn in a vacuum as it has its own oxygen. The only way I can think of fireproofing it would be to encase it in concrete, but its not strong enough to support the concrete .
Fireproofing uses PFAS and other forever chemicals. Better use naturally fire resistant materials. Dense straw is more fire resistant than plastic foam insulation ;) full size lumber is more fire resistant than fiberglass insulation, etc etc. Metal, stone, concrete (it’s pollution but fire retarding)...
The problem is banning sales. They should have just required a disclosure. Owners would be losing a little over £30k on the sale price, but at least they could sell and move somewhere safe, maybe suing the developers after to make themselves whole. Then investors with £30k sitting around can scoop up these properties, upgrade them, and sell for a profit, converting them from unsafe to safe as quickly as humanly possible.
An investor can't really upgrade and then sell for a profit if every single room in the building also needs updating as well (like he said in the video)
These multi owner type properties are a nightmare as a repair is only viable if the cladding to the entire building is fixed. And high rises are the worst as there are more owners to organize. If (say) there are a hundred flats and if (say) 50% will not or cannot pay, tte work is not going to get done. In Canada the homeowners association ultimately has the power to force a non contributing owner to sell but even that takes years. Don't expect the developer to pay, as he will likely argue it was constructed in accordance with the law then in place. This could drag on for years with the type of multi-owner arguing that contributed to the hi-rise collapse in Miami. One of the reasons I bought a freehold house, even if it is a tiny box miles from London. At least I am not dependent on others for my repairs.
The developers should be paying - if you bought a product that turned out to be miss sold you'd get a refund. Its not unreasonable to expect your house to...well...not burn down because its super flammable
Although I agree, I can totally see them say "the product we used was in compliance with the government's anti-fire building codes at the time - it was our job to adhere to those, it's not our responsibility that they were erroneous." The government would not have allowed the builders to construct the properties if they had deviated from what was deemed acceptable. So they were sort of forced to comply. Even though it turns out the code was complete bullshit. They didn't write it, and weren't allowed to change it, so they aren't the ones responsible. **IF** the above is correct, then the government should be the liable party. However, I'm not deep enough into the details about which corners were cut and how. Reality is always more complicated and nuanced than social media can accommodate...
@@MrNicoJac This problem is almost on a scale of the banking crisis in 2008, which the government of the time pulled out all the stops to fix. The government can *find* the money to fix this if they wanted to.
@@youngwt1 The government can find money, but it's from your pocket. The developers should be made to pay but they won't because capitalism and cronyism.
The extra layer of unfairness on this is that this cladding was mostly applied to buildings just to make them "look better" to the richer people who looked at Grenfell to no benefit at all to the residents. Also the the residents association in Grenfell had flagged up some issues for years and years and Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (KCTMO) who ran the tower on behalf of Kensington Borough Council just ignored them. I am not sure if the cladding was specifically mentioned, but apparently the manufactures of it knew it wasn't safe a good 13 years before the disaster. The entire thing is awful enough, then you learn that before the disaster two of the residents who died in the fire, Mariem Elgwahry and Nadia Choucair, were threatened with legal action by KCTMO after they campaigned for improved fire safety... neither of them lived to see their mid thirties. It is a travesty.
One of the most scandalous things about the Grenfell Tower disaster is just how small a saving the choice of cladding was. The refit contract cost was some £9 million and the decision to go with the cheaper, deadly cladding elicited a saving of just £243,000.
It's also worth mentioning that the victims of Grenfell tower are STILL displaced despite the constant assurance from the government that they'll rehouse them. 4 years later. They were also disproportionately poor/low income households and most of the properties were social housing. It was a horrific failing.
They have all been offered rehousing, every single one. They were predominantly immigrants, first and second generation, who are living in one of the richest boroughs on planet earth. They are entitled to housing, but they are not entitled to demand a luxury location because they got lucky the last time round.
I lived in the UK for 5 years and very much discovered the governments stance on it's normal citizens/residents getting screwed by deceptive or predatory practices from businesses and even the government itself is usually "Well you should have been more careful. Have a nice day."
I am from England and I swear every time I hear more about Grenfell tower the more disgusted I am. The government should pay for everyone that is suffering for this issue, the fact the was technically legal is barbaric.
I was working in a school when Michael Gove was education secretary. I will neither confirm nor deny that his face was on a dartboard in the staffroom.
Side note: my university apartment building had this cladding and I was living on the top at 16th floor that had only one staircase and no emergency one. And yes, this Gov is not fit for purpose.
@@laratheplanespotter holy shit for a uni building that really is terrible. I work near some of Bournemouth Uni's buildings, they all got built within the last 5 years and my building has had all its cladding stripped at the moment. I can't imagine many people would be happy sending their kids to live in buildings like that, the fact they are rentals and owned by pension funds means they are getting looked at pretty soon
How is that even possible? I'm an architect in Finland, and a 16 story building is required to have at least 3 staircases of which 2 have to be emergency staircases. That's just the minimum, if there are lots of apartments ofc you'd add more according to how many people need to get out. This is atrocious.
@@kstina9563 it should never have been opened. It failed a building regulations inspection the year prior to me moving in. I was at the reception desk so much reporting faults. I believe they’ve now made an external staircase and changed the cladding.
As a first time buyer and leaseholder, with a £7.2 MILLION bill about to hit all of us in our FAILED B2 EWS1 building (100 flats), my home is now one of these unsellable and terrifyingly unsafe buildings to live in which will soon leave many of us bankrupt. Dealing with MPs, government, developers and no one will take any responsibility. Don't forget just to keep the building open whilst we are a failure, we pay extortionate insurance, fire marshals and new fire alarms!? Very well explained and put Evan, the more publicity the better.
In the US you could just walk away from the loan and let the bank take the house. Is that not doable in the UK? The house is the collateral so when you stop paying, the bank gets the house back.
@@quademasters249 but we would all loose the deposits and repayments we have made to our equity in the property. How is that a fair option. And in some circumstances it wouldn’t be worth it % wise
@@oliviahill8696 It's one of those questions where the "sunk cost fallacy" needs to be considered. Will you ever break even on this house or is it permanently tainted so, paying more money in doesn't make sense? If you can reasonably assume that your house value will recover, it might be worth continuing to pay in. If it's looking like you've taken a permanent hit and are underwater then abandoning the house and any money's you've already spent might make sense. Plenty of people abandoned their houses in the US in '08 because they suddenly found themselves $200,000 or more under water and they didn't expect values to recover. In hindsight they might have been wrong but it depends on location. I'm surprised your government hasn't done more. I'd expect that in the US but not in the UK.
@@quademasters249 no on the US like the UK you are still jointly and severally liable for the mortgage and add such when the property is sold will be liable to pay off the house was in negative equity
Instead of posting the high insurance and sprinkler systems surely the money would be better spent getting the closing off and putting better cladding on.
I'm a certified Electrician and saw the overuse of PVC cladding and did not trust it at all, many in our industry have known this cladding was lethal. Anyone who has burned some PVC will know how toxic and how freely it burns. Some years back we had a drive to 'lag your loft', the free/subsidised rockwool turned out to be 'below current building regulations for a new build' [ bad order of cheap below standard old stock ] back then I knew 'they' did not care, they just wanted to appear to care...
What's even worse with Grenfell is that the block of flats was build in the 1960's when the area was working class and now it was a pocket of poverty in the middle of a very affluent area of literal mansions and millionaires. This block was mainly social housing owned by the council and the only reason it got flammable cladding was to make the building look less offensive to rich people.
Just to clarify, not all timber buildings are dangerous. There are many new developments (even tall buildings) made mostly from timber, for example in Finland, Sweden, Canada. When the build is according to the new safety codes, it can be safer than steel/concrete builds because it burns longer and predictably and keeps the structure stable.
@@zounds4885 OP: hey guys, did you know that material A is pretty safe? Idiot: yeah but property Z wasn't made of that 🤪 Congratulations, you win the **Irrelevance** price 🥳👍🏼
So I worked for a fire code consulting engineering firm in Canada (am not an engineer), and Grenfell has been a case study for a while. The building was especially tragic as not only was the cladding not sufficiently fire-safe, it was installed improperly and had a gap of air in between the building and the cladding. The increased oxygen caused the building to go up far too quickly for people to have a reasonable amount of time to get out. Anywhere in North America and this shouldn't have passed inspection and the engineers, the city, and the developers would have been liable to some degree.
@@pumpyronaldrump_4417 The air gap makes it like a chimney, the fire heats the air which rises which draws more air in from the bottom of the cladding which feeds the fire. I'm no engineer either but I guess if the cladding wasn't flammable the gap would be a good thing and act as an insulation layer and help save on heating costs
@@Pegaroo_ yeah I'm pretty sure that's how cladding is supposed to work after having looked it up. But it being flammable... how can flammable cladding even be legally released to the market?
As a now-lethargic/given-up activist, it's so refreshing to see someone understand how deep the corruption goes in this country of simply trying to live somewhere.
Reminds me of a movie "Les nouveaux sauvages" where a guy who got such a breakdown in face of unjust bureaucracy he put a bomb in his car so it blows in the bureau. He then became a hero. A thing like what happened to these people happened to me I can't say I wouldn't resort to terrorism either. They care so little about us
@@TheLily97232 Have you read about them who are refusing adequate, suitable, accommodation. I noticed that no one was complaining about distance from places of work. That most. have been rehoused, it's a small number who refusing.
Yeah right. It's so corrupt that the government has already put laws into place forcing developers and landlords to bear the brunt of the cladding costs and not pass them on to those homeowners/leaseholders. Not forgetting that they are also forcing said landlords and developers to fix their own fuck ups in the first place.
Myself and 400+ other leaseholders are going through this pain in a large complex. The leasehold terms are fair enough, but a management company has milked the tenants at every possible chance. It’s had a terrible effect on these innocent people and drastically reduced the saleability of our homes.
This is pertinent to me, as I'm saving for a first-time-buy, right now. Because the leasehold system is also broken, this means freehold is really the only option open to me, which means my only option is to keep saving. The UK housing market isn't just broken, it's legalised racketeering. Always has been, although it's now reaching a pretty high crescendo, because the ability to keep that racket under some pretence of control, has now disappeared. Before, if a crisis got out of control, the money was there to fix it. But now, it's gotten so big, and so fragmented under privatisation, that the only solution would be to hold the developers to account. And there is currently no political will to do that.
This is catastrophically unfair, I understand the concept of keeping fire hazard flats out of the open market, but the government needs to step in for allowing them to be built in the first place. If they really want to make this a reasonable situation the government should step in and offer to buy these hazardous flats off the owners so they can repaired or demolished and the land repurposed down the road.
Ultimately, this mess lies at the foot of successive governments. They have allowed the dismantling of regulations and standards in the building industry.
That's probably what they're trying to do... let Blackrock buy them all up on the cheap as part of the Great Reset. "You will own nothing and be happy" (we will own everything and be even happier).
Thanks for highlighting this Evan! The lack of accountability for the people who actually OK'd the building materials is ridiculous, why are they crashing the housing market for them?!
Regulation and oversight in the building industry has been diluted for years to the point where there is practically no building inspection and self-certificate is allowed. Big developer has benefitted from government buying incentives and found new ways to screw over the homebuyer. It used to be that a house was freehold, but developers started selling them as leasehold with the promise that after a qualifying period, the owner would have a chance to buy the freehold. Low and behold when it became time to buy the freehold, it had been sold on to a company who will generate income from new or ever more expensive charges.
There’s a lot of people out there that claim to be qualified, just because they’ve got a piece of paper to say so. The architects that ok this should be in jail
Unfortunately issues like this are everywhere it’s a scary thought. In Ireland currently there are houses crumbling because they were built using mica and other very soft materials peoples homes their money investments just crumbling in front of their eyes. It’s awful the corners being cut in the housing industry
@@alexreid1173 I know it’s crazy they cut corners with softer and cheaper materials and now homes are just crumbling down it’s awful just seeing bits of your house just break down in front of your eyes
Isn't it a wonder that the party of landlords and property developers makes rules that only help landlords and developers? 🤔 "Gove" is actually pronounced, "#@%&!!!!!" 🤬
@@evan The tower was built under Thatcher but that was when it was a concrete tower block. It was Labour who approved the deadly cladding.Also in 2005 it was a Labour government that introduced the Regulatory Reform Fire Safety Order which changed the requirement to inspect a building on fire safety from the local fire authority - usually the fire brigade - to a responsible person. Laws which took effect in 2006 ended the practice of routine fire service inspections, passing the responsibility to councils.
Governments are in the pockets of the corporations and big business. They institute laws and regulations which are designed to allow them to do whatever. Little people like us have no stake.
Evan you literally continue to teach me more about my own country than anyone ever has in my 40 years on earth. Thank you. And yes, the government are shite.
I am astonished that so few ppl in the UK are aware of the building saftey crisis. It is estimated that 15% of all housing property in the UK is impacted by this issue. If leaseholders start defaulting we are at risk of another economy crash. This problem has been hitting the front pages for about 2 years and about 3 million leaseholders are stuck in worthless property.
@@xythiera7255 that's true, but when people find themselves in negative equity it will start hitting people directly. At the moment for many the impact of brexit isn't that direct. I mean yes inflation is high, but for middle class 10% increase in household expenses would not necessarily be felt.
This is awful and stinks of incompetence. My Dad was one of the HSE Inspectors first on site at Grenfell. The stories he told me of what he saw still give me nightmares.
You need to know it was no accident. It was a fire sacrifice. Planned. If you are normal this sounds crazy I know. Beyond ordinary people's comprehension. I was once 'normal'. But once you discover what is open and published in full sight and you can see what is going on. Very important they use not our calendar but the Luna Calendar. Any 'event' you like... Lockerbie, Hiroshima, Pearl Harbor...
For the first time ever I see the value in my HOA. Where I live (US) in a multiple family building we’re required to pay an extra fee to a home owners association. This fee goes to repairing shared spaces like the roof, the community pool, the gym, parking lot, sidewalks, basically anything not directly inside our unit. If this were to happen to my building the HOA would fix it, and then sue the 💩 out of the builder and who ever approved the permitting because we’re an incredibly litigious society. Then they’d assess the owners a special fee to cover the difference. The HOA does hold high reserves (3 million last I checked) so that would absorb some of the cost but at 30,000 per, probably not all of it. I’m sorry the people of London are going through that.
Even Worse when these Elites and governments do this financial reset and do away with money the only people that will suffer are going to be the populations of the countries the governments and rich Elites will be comfy everyone else will lose their money and assets and this is coming.A Global financial Collapse .
I know buying can be difficult but my experience was completely opposite ...i decided to buy on a Friday looked for a house online over the weekend then viewed 4 properties the following Tuesday ...put a bid in the next day(didn't haggle) and by Friday(one week after deciding to buy) it was accepted... 100% mortgage with no deposit...
@@justincredible1375 you are correct, but in this case Grenfell and many high rise buildings belong to Tory donors of the Tory party, the Tory party allowed the owners of the buildings to cut corners, to save money, and therefore put profit before lives, in the case of Grenfell, before the cladding was put on, other political parties argued that safety checks and procedures shouldn't be put in place on all high rises, the Tory government refused to push this through, because the people who give money to their party are the building owners, hence past prime minister David Cameron is being questioned about Grenfell.
As an older person this leasehold scam where the ground rent keeps increasing is a relatively recent thing. In my younger days I had a leasehold flat and my ground rent was a fixed annual amount for the duration of the lease. Many people seem to have been taken in with the scam because they didn't hire their own solicitors to go through the contract with them. They used the one supplied by the developer. This is a big issue with a lot of housing developments across the country.
Even non developer recommended solicitors still put all information in the paperwork and you sign the agreement. It's down to how much they say and also how much research you do. If you aren't questioning the maintainence and ongoing costs that's a big problem on your side.
@@opaqueentity: the developer's "solicitors", in practice a licensed conveyancer, is not acting in the best interests of the buyer. However, an independent solicitors should be capable of looking at and interpreting the terms of the calls for payment. If they did not point out the detrimental clauses, that is negligence upon which you can sue.
@@eattherich9215 ideally yes but if they’ve gone through it all with you and you’ve still signed it that’s up to you. It’s amazing how many sensible normal people see maintainence fees etc as acceptable right up to the point that it isn’t. And yeah never go with the ones developers reccomend. But then if you are dealing with developers you are already in a weak position.
@@opaqueentity even if you did do research, i feel like many property agents will also just say that these are standard terms and pressurize people to accept dodgy terms.
@@opaqueentity: I am not talking about terms that have been explained and accepted by the client, but clauses such as ground rents that double every five years that the professional failed to notice.
This is quite similar to the situation we're currently experiencing in New Zealand. We're a very seismically active country and have had several large earthquakes in the past decade (the most well-known being the Christchurch earthquake in 2011, which destroyed most of the downtown area) but there was another in 2016 which although less catastrophic caused a lot of damage to the capital city Wellington, which quite literally sits on a massive fault line. Building codes were massively updated as a result, which has led to many buildings (especially apartment blocks) being classified as extremely vulnerable in the case of a major quake. However, it's basically been left up to apartment owners to pay out of pocket to get their buildings refurbished to the new code. If one person in the building can't afford it, then the work can't be done and people are stuck in a building that could very well collapse in an earthquake. There are no schemes available from the government, who've basically shrugged their shoulders and said 'oh well, good luck'. I'm from Christchurch, so I can't even describe how horrifying this is. A major quake could happen tomorrow and so many people would die as a result.
Good to know - at least HMG has done 'something' so all the UK wingers need to move to New Zealand and have no Government support then they are also stuck. UK not so bad.
This is not accurately true, there is a subsidy scheme run by Kianga Ora NZ, the Residential Earthquake-Prone Building Financial Assistance Scheme, it’s not a giveaway of money rather a deferred loan at low interest. I know most people in earthquake prone buildings would rather someone else pay for the upgrades, but then you have to consider that could apply to anyone buying a property then finding there is problem with it.
Here in Croatia too, the 5.4 in Zagreb and 6.4 in Petrinja that's pretty close to Zagreb destroyed a lot of homes and people have to pay out of their pockets and if they want the country to help they would wait for up to 5-10 years to get a solution. This also creates the market where the apartments in the center that got destroyed their prices are so low and are gonna get bought by rich folk and those who are selling won't be able to get another property at the same price.
Buying a house on land owned by someone else seems to be all the downsides of buying property with all the downsides of renting property. Like. I mean. That’s like buying a fork on someone else’s dinner plate (and none of the food).
Leasehold has existed for so long because it is a holdover from the days where the aristocracy owned all the land, the peasants were all tenants who paid to live on the land, it has never been abolished because so many MP's are also landowners/landlords. Oh and of course the Queen as well as her many many cousins would lose out on masses of annual income fleeced directly from the peasants.
This is a leasehold issue that has impacted millions. My ex has a flat where the external balconies and walkways were condemned and all leaseholders got a bill of around £30,000 to replace them. Without a lease system a percentage of owners would refuse to pay, then people all through the walkway and die and all the flats are worthless.
Regarding leasehold it was one of the few occasions of bad laws Margaret Thatcher tried to change, but when wealthy landlords like the then Duke of Westminster threatened to stop donations to the Tory party they back peddled.
cant believe there are still displaced people after Grenfell, whilst literally across the street there are empty million-pound houses that are owned by rich people who dont use them. disgusting
God, thank you for talking about this. I live on a council estate, and still have horrible reactions whenever I hear any of my neighbours' fire alarms go off because we have no idea what our building's made of - we saw the New Providence Wharf fire while out on a walk and it definitely didn't help.
Stuck in this awful situation - though our cladding is not flammable, yet our EWS1 failed due to missing fire breaks. So unfortunately this whole mess is far greater than just cladding. The building is 5 floors, no residents feel unsafe yet can’t sell or move and been stuck for 18 months. Ideal with two children….! I’ll do you a great deal on my flat in Bromley lol.
Oh my god that sounds terrifying. How is that even legal? I just googled it and apparently UK citizens can't sue their government anymore. That's wild. That should be a human right. The government isn't perfect and shouldn't be above the law.
Absolutely excellent video. A couple of friends of mine were able to secure a mortgage on a flat recently and I'm hoping beyond hell that they don't get screwed over on this. The fact that most of this stupid cladding was to "make the buildings look better" so was mostly applied to old low cost flats means that the people footed with the bill are probably people who are already just trying to make ends meet, and now they're stuck with a huge bill and no way out. Tax on the poor because corners were cut so rich people didn't have to feel as bad when they looked at the poor people's housing. Disgraceful
This is actually insane 😦😦I study Architecture in Brazil, and the laws here are any structural or safety problems are the legal responsibility of the engineer / architect who signed off on the project. Not only that, but for a building to be be passed by the government, there are specific fire safety legislations for each type of building (use, height, area ) that must be approved by the fire department before the go ahead for construction
The problem is having companies self report. The flammable cladding was against the regulations, but the construction company simply claimed they used some other material.
Thank you for making this. I bought my flat a couple of months before the Grenfell fire, I was SO lucky that my building is all brick construction, because I NEVER would have thought to check something like this and I could have so easily lost everything.
Just because a building is all brick construction doesn’t mean it is safe. I live in a converted, Victorian goods warehouse. A recent fire safety survey showed that the safety measures were not up to standard. Basically, the building was a death-trap, ill fitting doors, below standard fire lagging between floors, insufficient emergency lighting and more. The building was converted 30yrs ago and no one had kept it up to standard. Thankfully I’m with a housing association so I don’t have to foot the bill for the work they are currently doing on the building to put it right. Make sure your leaseholder is giving you value for money and keeping up to date with current and ongoing changes to legislation. Your paying the fee for them to do just that.
@Rachelhappyface: even if you had 'though to check' chances are the nature of any cladding would not have been disclosed. The only thing that matters is that materials are in line with regulations.
I remember seeing grenfell from my living room window before going to school as a ~8 yr old, and watching the scandal unfold. There was a hotel on my bus route that was almost completely torn down because it used this cladding and cut so many corners. As a young person who probably wont be able to leave this country, I am scared for my future.
@@ottakringcalling I think that person meant that saw the building before the catastrophe (like was living in the neighbourhood and the incident happened years later)
@@Bllairy On a second read, that makes much more sense :D. Thank you for that. For some reason my brain didn't work it out that way. Original garbage comment will be deleted.
isn't the problem quite specifically related to those tower block type buildings? unless you mean you already live in one of those, or you can't avoid buying a flat like that to live. Despite living in the UK I'm completely ignorant to anything Evan's said about his problems buying (and I've never heard of anyone having these issues when buying a home), and I live a million miles away from London where houses are quite cheap and I wouldn't rent/ buy a flat anyway, so forgive my ignorance if I'm being inconsiderate
@@ca1694 a lot of new buildings are built with this cladding, especially new/"affordable" housing. That means a lot of people trying to buy property are trapped in crap housing they can't sell, so their finances are fucked. Just because you live in a rural area doesn't mean you won't be affected either - our economy is already fucked from covid and austerity, and this housing crisis could tip us over the edge. Everyone will be affected, and the government are only protecting the developers because those companies are run by their mates who are profiting handsomely. It's a complete scandal
People should start setting their mortgage payments aside, out of the country. Make it the banks' problem and then you might get some action. And a word of advice, never buy property if you don't own the whole building and the land it's on. This shouldn't be the victims' problem, but avoiding such schemes would have saved them the issue. If you want to live in the city, great, but rent. And from the perspective of the builders, what they did was legal, and maybe they didn't even know the severity of the problem. This is going to have to be a parliamentary solution. Perhaps the government, owners, and builders each contribute equal thirds. Perhaps the government just fronts the money then worries about collecting the other 2/3 later.
Yes! If you really want to buy, buy the whole house and land in the country and still rent in the city. The rent or short term rental income can help offset the cost of your rent in the city.
Thank you for highlighting this issue. The best properties in the UK are old homes. I bought a new home in London Docklands and could hear everything my neighbour was saying as the walls were plaster. Homes dont pay leases or services charges. I hate that in flats.
I still amazed that flats near me in London now/still have to pay out EVERY DAY for a 24 hour watchman to simply just watch and monitor the outside of the building just in case it catches fire. The residents can’t get it sorted but also can’t leave it not sorted, so are having to subscribe and pay out for this temporary measure on repeat… it just blows my mind and angers me so much!
Suggestion: build a fake parliament in Peppa Pig World, put Boris and his goons there and act like they are still running the country. Meanwhile, people with actual competence and a mirror and a hairbrush can really run the UK.
I agree but the reality is the Conservatives will be in power for the next 10-15 years because they control the media cartel and bamboozle ordinary Brits There really is no point of participating because you don't matter.
This is disgusting. The developers should be held accountable. The government should be repairing these building. With the forms there will be corruption.
Respect for covering this. What you've experienced is just one part of the messed up system. The situation for renters and people who rely on social housing is also massively affected by this. When people with full-time jobs end up living in their cars, you've got to ask wtf is going on.
@@eattherich9215 It's called the Cloward-Piven Strategy, and it is designed to bring the system down so the authors can step in and rebuild it the way they want. It's a favorite of Marxists.
@@freethebirds3578 Neoliberalism started this shite. They kept wages the same for 40 yrs, no benefits, part-time work for non managers Inflation etc al. There were no homeless when I was a kid. You could get a job anywhere anytime. We didn't have credit scores then. And a house cost a year or 5 of your wages. Definitely there's a problem with the trickle down system...or maybe it's just drips when it gets to you. Real fkd.
Apparently this type of cladding has also been found in many parts of the US as well. It looks to be more common in the UK. So glad your bringing this to more peoples attention since the only articles I can find on it are from 2017.
Homes in the US are far, far, easier and cheaper to retrofit. And it usually only affects one house here and there on rare occasion. So it never becomes a wide spread crisis like in the UK. Plus in the US people have the right to sue to recoup costs.
Only in London and other big cities. Most mortgage lenders won't lend on a building over 6 stories unless it's with a certain mile around the M25. Even if you have the keys back you are still liable for the mortgage so no it won't cause economic pain just passing to the individual and I doubt the bill will get to passed. I'm sure a find may be set up but it won't cover everyone.
Here in Iowa, we just had our own extremely unfair law put into place. It used to be that when a home turned 100 years old, it would then be eligible for a century home grant, where the state government would provide funds to remodel and update the house to preserve it. All was great for a while, and my parents and I were counting on this to help with our house, which this very year turned 100. Only just this last year, they rewrote the law stating that only houses that were 100 years old and owned by the SAME family for all that time could get a grant. Now only about 5% of the old grants are given out. Convenient how much money the government saves with that.
@@alanchase7329 Because they are trying to preserve old houses, and the grants are incentive for that. Plus my parents are both 80, and they don't exactly have the odd $20,000 just lying around to fix the roof and electrics. At the very least they are eligible for a loan because of their age to help fix the place, but the grant would have been nice as well.
A few other reasons that we see those type of grants given out are because older house can of have a ton of hazards & that many state have historical home renovation standards/laws. Many old houses when build of course do not fit modern building code/laws, on top of that older buildings can also have a ton of renovations that were undocumented & don't meet building codes. There is also the problem that many older building, (though honestly almost any home in the US mass built before the 80s & sometimes 90s that was not renovated,) will most likely have a large portion of hazards materials used. Lead in the house from paint & other finishing materials, asbestos, random insulation, timber & other materials treated with toxic or flammable material, old electrical & old plumbing, etc. Since there are so main problems in much older buildings, many that were not renovated throughout there life, many often don't make it or those that do often are to much of a cost to buy, possibly not liviable, and have costly renovations that must be done. There are many place that are now trying to preserve older builds because honestly the history for most of them are amazing, but because of all the issues I listed above many buildings will not make it another 50yrs if not actively invested in. However, the push to try & preserve older buildings has brought some of it own problem in many places. I guess the big two ones are zoning, as well as some state/citys historical preservation laws. In some state/cities where zoning have changed dramatically it can mean that a older homes property value is basically worthless. Think of the movie UP, a older home ending up in a commercial, entertainment, or industrial area. The twist is though that sometimes it isn't the issue that the owner want to keep the house, but instead that because of the areas laws regarding the historical significance of a build that property cannot be sold for demolition & the house may not be allowed to be moved as well. The other issue is that sometimes the zoning makes it impossible for people to now maintain there home. In many places there are historical districts & societies that have strict standards on how older homes are maintained & renovated. That means that if your home falls under those rules, that while having to bring that house up to date on certain building codes you are not allowed to work outside of the home time period &/or style. Depending on what the historical standards are it could be as simple as not being able to put modern Windows in place (though even that can mean the home is less energy efficient so the owner will have high utilities over all,) or only being allow to use vintage fixtures (depending on what it falls under this can mean expensive restoration or out right tracking down costly vintage replacements.) On the flip side stricter standards geared to full restoration can mean that the owner is unable to use modern materials almost completely & unable to use non specialized builder/contractors. A good example would be artisan homes that have complex handmade masonry & woodwork through out. In essence if an older home is classified as historical there is a very good chance that the home owner is very limited on what can & can't be done to a home with maintenance standards that are very costly. Zoning changes with the possibility of historical standard can also mean that a older home could fall outside of an area that is granted aid to help maintain the home which can make upkeep almost impossible. So overall older home/building receive grants in many place because they are tangible examples of an area history/ingenuity/and creativity. These building also help keep skilled craftsmanship on view for the general public, which can help keep those trades from being lost. However, because older building can have such costly upkeep, be hazardous, and limit the owners ability to move/sale/or renovate many states\cities find it more cost effective to award grants or other assistance to insure that the building are maintained & brought to code without have to take on the full responsibility themselves. Basically it helps to mitigate public safety issues, which in return means less vacancy & condemn buildings, which then helps maintain/increase the property values for the area, which then mean a better probability of maintaining/increasing the population, and because of all of that, (as well as having restored historical building to draw in tourist,) a state/city can put little effort into an area but have large gains in commerce & development. Edit: Ignore the typos, I just noticed my auto-correct/fill decided to help me write...so yeah I'm not fixing it.
@@alanchase7329 And to piggyback off of/extend the other two excellent illuminating answers already given -- because the taxpayers have to pay a LOT more in the end for public health costs and emergency services costs if upstream factors that affect health and safety, like hazards of old un-updated buildings, aren't addressed. The all-too-common attitude of "Why should ***I*** have to pitch in on things that are for everyone's benefit?" in this country is exactly why we're all so screwed already and have so much of our taxes going toward cleaning up the many, many messes that that damned ignorant selfish shortsighted attitude has created for us. If you take basic care of people in the first place, by making sure they can eat and be housed safely and access good education and good jobs without constantly facing all sorts of hazards, then they cost society less and contribute more in the long run. It's well-established fact that most civilized nations these days -- the ones with great public health and quality of life, where American expats are trying to flee to right now if they can afford it -- have been basing policy on for a long time.
@@ItsAsparageese If the house has been in the same family the grant still applies. If the house has been sold, possibly for profit, over the years the grant does not apply. I would think that just like normal properties the houses are priced with the need for various maintenance taken into account each time they are sold. I do however see your point.
My grandparents bought a place that was supposed to have fire proof wood on the outside. They bought it from the property developer. The property developer never provided the document that goes with the fire proof wood to prove its authenticity. When an engineer came to look at the wood, it turns out the wood is just normal wood that was painted to look like the right now. Apparently the developer loosing that safety proving document is not a problem and now all the responsibilities are on my grandparents. So now they live in a flat that could burn down and that they will struggle to sell with nothing that they can do about it.
I'm glad you've made this video as a lot of people don't seem to be aware of the issue. I'm currently living in a rented flat with various fire safety issues. My partner and I are looking to buy, but most flats in the area have fire safety issues. Stories such as you mentioned of the person buying a flat with an EWS1 then it being revoked after 30 days from purchase make me terriefied of ever buying a flat.
Thank you so much for this. Grenfell left people's awareness far too soon. The inhabitants are being treated appallingly and building companies are hoping that with all the other mess going on the cladding will be forgotten. I'm lucky enough not to live in a high-rise and Grenfell has made one the last place I want to live in
When the companies asked for immunity from prosecution in exchange for co-operating with the investigation, the police should have been sent in to secure all the company records immediately on that day and the companies investigated immediately. They were admitting being involved in criminal negligence that led to multiple deaths.
We know exactly how you feel. My partner remortgaged his flat. As part of the process the EWS1 form was required. Our issue was that it required the freeholder to complete, who refused to do so. We ended up being stuck between their agent, the mortgagee and the technician. The ridiculous situation was that the building should not require the form, due to its height. The outside walls are around 95% brick with small decorative cladding panels that would not be considered any issue. Yet the lender falsely insisted on it. Fortunately, after a lot of being messed around, we went to a different mortgagee who agreed the EWS1 wasn't necessary! They completed the remortgage in 10 days. The precious company had stolen 2 months.
The actual cladding insulation material itself has the highest fire safety rating possible. However, it only obtained this rating for installation flat against the wall. It was never tested in situations where the cladding has an air gap between the wall and the cladding with the insulation in open backed panels. An easy and quick fix is to remove the panels and install a sealing panel on the back.
It is amazing that this could happen and staggering that having happened, it has not been fixed immediately. The leasehold system remains in place because it is fabulously profitable for very well connected people. Belgravia is built on land leased from His Grace, the Duke of Westminster, who is fabulously wealthy as a result. C'est la vie. Thank you for the video!
Ground rent was abolished in Scotland and Ireland. It could also be abolished in England but it suits the great and good to keep their own nests feathered. It's a disgrace and people need to make it a serious political issue or it will not change.
Grenfell should have brought the government down, an absolute travesty. The whole leasehold/freehold situation in England is ridiculous. When we bought our leasehold flat we also bought a 1/3rd share of the freehold. This technically makes me my own landlord. The previous owner did not maintain the property as laid out in the leasehold agreement so right now I could sue myself for breach of contract.
The Grenfell Tower cladding was not timber. It was some kind of foam plastic covered on outside with a thin aluminium sheet. Not only was the plastic highly flammable, but the aluminium sheet protected it from water the firemen tried spraying on it . The whole side of the 20+ story building went up in flames in minutes.
I am surprised that a full on class action naming the overseeing ministry, developers, manufacturers, and inspectors has not been pushed through to hold these groups accountable. But then again, it is also entirely believable as it is likely that all groups signed sketchy deals to cover their asses
The planning and building regulations are designed to enable big developer. Further, contract and leasehold law puts the developer at a distance from any liability. A developer can say this is the fault of the contractor or contractors, but the person damaged by any negligent acts cannot sue the contractor or contractors because of the doctrine of 'privity of contract' that is to say you cannot sue someone unless you are in a contractual relationship with them.
Class action is an American thing - we don't really have an equivalent in the English legal system. A group called Manchester Cladiators is crowd sourcing funds to pursue a claim against the govt though.
I was going to buy a condo in Hawaii until I found out about the lease hold situation. As far as the bill they may pass, the builders will just declare bankruptcy to get out of paying and everyone will be back to square one. Look at what happened at Love Canal.
There is a way to force change: all of the people who are stuck in that situation (I mean the individual owners, f*ck the developers/banks) should all band together and default on their mortgages all at once. The economy will tank because the banks will have such a huge issue on their hands and the government will have to do something immediately. And the people can't allow any compromises - cutting corners and compromises and weakness are what created the situation in the first place. If people would only just realize that they are more powerful than they think, maybe somethings could actually change. But you have to hit those in power where it actually counts, where they actually will take notice: their pockets.
The economy will not tank. One banks in London handles overnight transactions of $2,000,000,000,000. That is just one!! The value of these properties is absolutely peanuts and would have zero impact on the economy.
Something similar to this, but on a smaller scale, happened in Ireland during the financial crisis around 2010 when people defaulted by necessity over a short period. It involved maybe 15-20% of domestic mortgages and it caused a sufficiently large liquidity problem in banks that changes were made, although not all of them good. If a larger percentage of domestic borrowers acted together it would appear, on the basis of history, that they would indeed be a force that would command respect. They might not bring down banks but they would certainly cause a change of underpants in bank boardrooms.
I'm surprised that people still pay their mortgages. If I were in this situation I'd spend a few months finding the best legal action and best way to handle a bankruptcy then refuse to pay the mortgage. I'd rather have my assets wiped out and have to start over than throwing 100K away on something legally worth nothing and is a fire hazard.
@@mbak7801 Your heart pumps about 2,000 gallons (~7570 litres) of blood per day. A single gallon, by comparison, is 'peanuts;' yet if you lost that amount in the same day, you probably wouldn't fare well. Just as blood serves as a medium of exchange for oxygen, money serves as a medium of exchange for value; the amount transacted is not necessarily indicative of the amount of lost value required to precipitate an economic crisis.
This is the reason I can’t have a doormat in front of my doors. Like a doormat will make the situation any worse if the building is already on fire. I got three warnings about it saying it’s a potential fire hazard.
Technically true though. If it caught fire, it could create enough heat to burn through the protective layer of paint on your door, which could then catch fire. Of course, it probably wouldn't burn from a cigarette or whatever, so you'd probably need petrol or at least a dropped candle to make it catch fire - and once the goalposts are moved to being arson-proof, I doubt that the hallway and door themselves would pass... So it's still a pretty bullshit argument of theirs
I don't think I would ever buy property in the London area. We almost got transferred there and were warned about all the issues you mentioned. The leasing of the land thing is bizarre. I love to visit but I was glad we didn't get moved there.
As an Englishman that's living in the US, and have done for half my life, I am beginning to understand this litigious country more and more. If I were in the predicament Evan describes, I'd sue, failing that, i'd default on my mortgage, get everyone out and burn it to the ground (and take the insurance, assuming they're even still insurable at this point?), take the bankruptcy, whatever, it's not worth the risk to my life. Someone will pay, and I'd do everything in my power to make sure it's not the fucked over owners of the units.
I very much doubt they are covered for fire anymore. Its the old joke concerning insuring the SierraCosworth (each yearly premium including theft cover was the price of the car itself) as the Cosworth was EXPECTED to be stolen and written off.
So many times iv seen land for sale, That is not buildable listed as buildable, or- buyer must do due diligence, there is always something wrong with the land, it's a wetland- or Simply uninhabitable land locked advertised as accesable etc, wondering if I should just buy a houseboat.
In the UK if you default on a mortgage, it's still a debt you are legally obliged to pay, even if the house it relates to no longer exists. If it was a multi-occupied building the insurance might be claimable only by the freeholder or freeholders not the occupants. It would be unlikely to find a high rise building where everyone owned their flats and they were all insured.
I’m an engineer and have worked on clarifying the hazard potential of dams. It’s not an exact science, and I can definitely see how people might come up with different ratings… 😞 I think chartered engineers in the UK need five or so years of experience, whereas in the United States we need five years of experience and to pass two 8-hour exams. It’s also fairly easy to lose your license should you mess up on something - I’m guessing it’s similar in the uk, and they are a bit nervous about it. This sounds like a big mess. The only thing that can really step in and fix it is probably the government…
A big part of the problem now is that everyone is so cautious and won't put their name to anything that says a block of flats is safe - Evan had that issue with someone refusing to upload the docs to the portal. So even if your block is safe, nobody will confirm it so insurance is sky high and nobody will mortgage a flat.
Leasehold properties have now gotten such a bad name since the Grenfell disaster that now people have been put off even contemplating purchasing a leasehold property. Also, beware of buying recently built freehold properties because in some instances, for a number of reasons, owners of certain freehold properties also have to pay maintenance fees which can be absolutely extortionate - over £10,000 per year in some cases. This is because the local councils have not spent money on providing suitable roads nearby plus other amenities that are normally in place when one purchases freehold. Councils are trying to save taxpayers money here and leave the responsibility of providing a local road system to private companies who then pass the maintenance costs for those roads to new freehold buyers. So, even before buying a new freehold property, be very careful and do your research and look out for the pitfalls. Older freehold properties (more than 10 years old, say) are a much safer bet because councils own the surrounding roads and footpaths etc., so the onus is on them (the local council) to maintain them and not the individual property owners.
You can even get charged for "gardens" when all there is literally a couple of flowers in a bed. But when it's lifts etc you understand it. But you agree to all these extra costs when you sign your contracts. Roads are normally not adopted by councils until the whole development is finished which could be decades away in some cases.
"owners of certain freehold properties also have to pay maintenance fees which can be absolutely extortionate - over £10,000 per year in some cases" "There's one for you, nineteen for me"
DO NOT buy a leasehold house. The promise that you will be able to acquire the freehold after a qualifying period is a barefaced lie. At the end of the qualifying period, home owners often find that the freehold interest has been sold on without notice.
Freeholds with management covenants are actually worse than leaseholds, because at least leasehold service charges and ground rents are regulated by law.
People need to follow my advice from the 1980s (and my parents in the 1960s) and my father's parents in the 1930s. Buy a freehold house even if you have a long commute. No leasehold. no flats. No common parts. Secondly rule - buy with two professional salaries and buy before you breed. Third rule - Steer clear of anything newly built.
The best way to solve this is to literally stop paying your mortgage. The property is the underlying asset, which they can seize and kick you out of. And then they have a property on their balance sheet that they themselves defined as having zero value (but which still has some maintenance costs). You'll probably find that the banks are suddenly willing to offer the inhabitants association a loan that covers the re-cladding. Or else, you at least won't be the one who has to worry about selling the place.
Your risking destroying your credit rating to bluff with a bank who can afford to have an unsellable 200k asset as they know the issue will be resolved before they have to sell it
@@petehall1985 Exactly, and now you're out however much you put as a down payment and mortgage payments, and YOU CAN NEVER GET IT BACK. Essentially, you have hundreds of thousands of pounds of sunk cost, which could bankrupt you.
@@valerieblackwood9777 better to lose your savings than your life if the worst should happen while living in a building that isn't safe. Money can be replaced, people can't.
It seems to me that the people who should be eating the cost of these repairs are the government and the developers. They created the problem, they should have to fix it. When you buy a home, that home comes under the assumption that it is safe to live in. If it turns out it is not safe to live in, who eats the cost of making it safe?
You're a legend for bringing public awareness to this complete clown show! The government needs to step in and fix their mistake and your outreach is a step in the right direction
Fun having my life described in such detail. I managed to move out and let my apartment out, though kinda cheaply, so still sucks to have my money tied up in a flat I can't sell. It also means I have to pay more than 10k extra in taxes if I buy myself a new place because the taxes are higher if you own two properties 🤷♂
This story feels so big that if John Oliver lived in UK he would cover this story in Last week tonight. I feel like I will need to watch it twice to fully understand it.
I am glad I caught this post it's very enlightening. After years ago my local council was offering cladding on the exterior of homes in the county for the handsome sum of 10 thousand pounds repayable over ten years with interest another scam by local government authority. Needless to say I refused and organised home insulation myself. Its so sad for people stuck in those flats 😪
Yes the developers should be paying. However also: the manufacturer of the cladding who falsely claimed it had the required fire rating should be putting funding in to replace it.
something similar happened in Australian highrises but instead of catching on fire, these buildings are cracking, cracking to the point where the buildings are literally standing empty and nobody is allowed to re-enter not even to get their clothes, or cars still parked in the garage, so of course, they cant sell on the apartments. What is worse is that many more people are living in these buildings made out of the same material and are completely unaware of the fact. I think (in both the UK and Australia) that govt should buy back these homes, not for what they were bought for, but for what they would be sold for today if they were in good condition, and either demolish them if they are too far gone or reclad the buildings themselves and then use them for state housing, (coz every country is short on state housing) but unfortunately, nothing like this will happen. The people who are victims of this need to do a class action against the government to get their money back coz at the end of the day it might be the developer that cut corners but not only did the govt allow this to happen, they made it legal to do so.
Conservative UK government is focussed on making as much money as possible and I’ve yet to see any genuine evidence of them caring for the people they’re responsible for
Well it's still leasing you are just allowed to move your furniture around and paint it different colours. Really the leaseholders should be ultimately responsible for the building they let people build on their land since they are still claiming leasehold money for. Sadly there are probably 20 holding companies between the poor human in the building and the rich human who owns the freehold.
If the tenants got together and told their mortgage holders to contact the govt and do something about this or they refuse to pay their mortgage and let the banks have them. Banks have the clout with the British government to get this resolved!
![SAFEPLANET - ดาวเคราะห์ [ THE PLANET ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4X1XL3I_k3c/mqdefault.jpg)
If this was a car manufacturer, they would have to recall the vehicles. The developer should be forced to buy back the property at the rate the buyer took it at.
I agree, except it should be at today's market price (without cladding). Prices have rocketed recently and they should be compensated like for like.
They'd have to make arrangements to upgrade the building within a certain amount of time like 6 months or something and, if not completed within that time, buy back the property at the current market price if the building did meet the safety standard in question. In the meantime, at least until the building can be certified to the standards it was supposed to be certified to when it was finished, they should be made financially liable for any possible loss of property or life if the cladding is proven to be at fault, and with a retroactivity clause to also cover any incident that meets these requirements that may've taken place before the time of the discovery of the problem
I came here to say this.
There are a lot of cases where the developer no longer exists. They've liquidated and restarted their businesses under a new name.
@@donglejitter4411 they should have had liability insurance though.
I know that a lot of people watching this won't understand the ins and outs of what Evan is saying.
However:
This is an excellently researched, beautifully analysed and clearly explained situation.
*This video should be required viewing for anyone trying to buy a house in England and Wales at the moment.*
IT'S IMPORTANT.
Many, many, many thanks, Evan.
i would expect nothing less from Evan
England and Wales, but not Scotland/Northern Ireland?
@@jennhall522 I'm not sure, but I think Scotland and Northern Ireland are able to set different housing and building regulations.
Looks like the Welsh government are to buy back the affected buildings, would make a lot of sense, let's hope it happens.
@@jennhall522 to
Evan holding a cup of tea for nearly 14 mins to comply with British citizenship requirements
Only for Priti Patel to strip it away.
Just to lose it for no reason and stand there without any passport . Holly shit i am happy the arnt in the EU anymore . The UK has mutated into any even bigger shit hole .
😁😁😁
😄
Nothing beats a good cup of tea. It's an essential requirement! ❤🇬🇧😁
I am a retired Professional Civil Engineer(US). The liability for an Engineer to certify any building was too great for me to even consider doing that kind of inspections. I've seen crappy materials problems, time and time again since the 1960s. That is why I built my house myself. I spent an extra $1000 to use flame resistant materials.
I would think that the flammable siding could be treated with fireproofing. You've done a very good job on this video. Good Luck, Rick
Hi there! No pressure if you don't have the time or don't feel like it, but if you're willing, I'd love to learn from any elaboration you'd like to give about fireproof materials in home construction. I'm self-building my own tiny home trailer and then mountain tiny home over the next few years, and operating as frugally as possible (currently live in a truck and will be building using student loans with mostly salvaged materials lol), but I need to invest heavily in good fire safety, particularly for the mountain home since my speck of land is in a high fire risk area.
It's hard to get useful information online about materials choices without running into a lot of marketing articles biased in favor of different products. I'm friends with some engineers but none are civ or into home materials much haha. I'm planning to learn a fair bit of basic DIY bricklaying/masonry along the way and I'm willing to do hard/lengthy work in order to use materials that work well and hopefully don't cost a ton, but I'm also willing to save and invest wherever it's wisest. I'd be delighted to learn from any wisdom you'd want to share, and again of course no pressure at all to humor me the favor! Thanks for the work you've done and for the ethics you clearly hold, and I hope you're doing well!
@@ItsAsparageese Look at the latest building codes in California. They have "fire proof" requirements. Build with brick and have a steel or clay tile roof. Keep trees and brush well back from the house. A sprinkler system that soaks the house and lawn around it will help. IT would need to be able to work without electricity for several hours. Good Luck, Rick
@@richardross7219 Thank you so much! This is great foundational info for me to work with. 😁 I super appreciate it!
the cladding is to layers of aluminum with a flammable foam insulation several inches thick sandwiched between the aluminum . The foam was expanded with air so every bubble in it has oxygen in it, but the bubbles are not connected . The material can burn in a vacuum as it has its own oxygen. The only way I can think of fireproofing it would be to encase it in concrete, but its not strong enough to support the concrete .
Fireproofing uses PFAS and other forever chemicals. Better use naturally fire resistant materials. Dense straw is more fire resistant than plastic foam insulation ;) full size lumber is more fire resistant than fiberglass insulation, etc etc. Metal, stone, concrete (it’s pollution but fire retarding)...
The problem is banning sales. They should have just required a disclosure. Owners would be losing a little over £30k on the sale price, but at least they could sell and move somewhere safe, maybe suing the developers after to make themselves whole. Then investors with £30k sitting around can scoop up these properties, upgrade them, and sell for a profit, converting them from unsafe to safe as quickly as humanly possible.
i think the problem is that lenders would not want to take the risk.
SUING NO WAY,MIDDLE OF THE EYES ALL THE WAY .
An investor can't really upgrade and then sell for a profit if every single room in the building also needs updating as well (like he said in the video)
You'd also have to legally require that the purchaser make the building safe, otherwise it's not profitable for them to do so.
These multi owner type properties are a nightmare as a repair is only viable if the cladding to the entire building is fixed. And high rises are the worst as there are more owners to organize. If (say) there are a hundred flats and if (say) 50% will not or cannot pay, tte work is not going to get done. In Canada the homeowners association ultimately has the power to force a non contributing owner to sell but even that takes years. Don't expect the developer to pay, as he will likely argue it was constructed in accordance with the law then in place. This could drag on for years with the type of multi-owner arguing that contributed to the hi-rise collapse in Miami. One of the reasons I bought a freehold house, even if it is a tiny box miles from London. At least I am not dependent on others for my repairs.
The developers should be paying - if you bought a product that turned out to be miss sold you'd get a refund. Its not unreasonable to expect your house to...well...not burn down because its super flammable
Although I agree, I can totally see them say "the product we used was in compliance with the government's anti-fire building codes at the time - it was our job to adhere to those, it's not our responsibility that they were erroneous."
The government would not have allowed the builders to construct the properties if they had deviated from what was deemed acceptable.
So they were sort of forced to comply. Even though it turns out the code was complete bullshit.
They didn't write it, and weren't allowed to change it, so they aren't the ones responsible.
**IF** the above is correct, then the government should be the liable party.
However, I'm not deep enough into the details about which corners were cut and how.
Reality is always more complicated and nuanced than social media can accommodate...
God forbid developers give up some money.
@@MrNicoJac This problem is almost on a scale of the banking crisis in 2008, which the government of the time pulled out all the stops to fix. The government can *find* the money to fix this if they wanted to.
@@youngwt1 The government can find money, but it's from your pocket. The developers should be made to pay but they won't because capitalism and cronyism.
It's completely the developer's problem! They created this problem!
The extra layer of unfairness on this is that this cladding was mostly applied to buildings just to make them "look better" to the richer people who looked at Grenfell to no benefit at all to the residents. Also the the residents association in Grenfell had flagged up some issues for years and years and Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (KCTMO) who ran the tower on behalf of Kensington Borough Council just ignored them. I am not sure if the cladding was specifically mentioned, but apparently the manufactures of it knew it wasn't safe a good 13 years before the disaster. The entire thing is awful enough, then you learn that before the disaster two of the residents who died in the fire, Mariem Elgwahry and Nadia Choucair, were threatened with legal action by KCTMO after they campaigned for improved fire safety... neither of them lived to see their mid thirties. It is a travesty.
Threatened with legal action because they didn't want to be burned alive is not a sentence I'd thought I'd never see.
@@ANTSEMUT1 just yet another example of how completely horrendous society has become 😞
One of the most scandalous things about the Grenfell Tower disaster is just how small a saving the choice of cladding was. The refit contract cost was some £9 million and the decision to go with the cheaper, deadly cladding elicited a saving of just £243,000.
@@eattherich9215 Jesus Christ what arseholes.
Anthony Ngu Just a small bit.
It's also worth mentioning that the victims of Grenfell tower are STILL displaced despite the constant assurance from the government that they'll rehouse them. 4 years later.
They were also disproportionately poor/low income households and most of the properties were social housing. It was a horrific failing.
They were mostly rehoused. You should look at the grenfell rehousing policy and the refusal rates.
Many who are still not houses are like this because they refused the replacement houses offered preferring to remain homeless.
They have all been offered rehousing, every single one. They were predominantly immigrants, first and second generation, who are living in one of the richest boroughs on planet earth. They are entitled to housing, but they are not entitled to demand a luxury location because they got lucky the last time round.
@@darthkek1953 Yes they are. Put yourself in their shoes.
@@tracik1277 Being a victim of a tragedy does not entitle you to things you are not entitled to.
I lived in the UK for 5 years and very much discovered the governments stance on it's normal citizens/residents getting screwed by deceptive or predatory practices from businesses and even the government itself is usually "Well you should have been more careful. Have a nice day."
I am from England and I swear every time I hear more about Grenfell tower the more disgusted I am. The government should pay for everyone that is suffering for this issue, the fact the was technically legal is barbaric.
I was working in a school when Michael Gove was education secretary. I will neither confirm nor deny that his face was on a dartboard in the staffroom.
I was a high school student during that period. We students hated him as much as the teachers did.
Side note: my university apartment building had this cladding and I was living on the top at 16th floor that had only one staircase and no emergency one. And yes, this Gov is not fit for purpose.
Where were you living?
Not many places have 16th floors
@@emilyscloset2648 City Gateway that’s provided by the University of Southampton
@@laratheplanespotter holy shit for a uni building that really is terrible. I work near some of Bournemouth Uni's buildings, they all got built within the last 5 years and my building has had all its cladding stripped at the moment. I can't imagine many people would be happy sending their kids to live in buildings like that, the fact they are rentals and owned by pension funds means they are getting looked at pretty soon
How is that even possible? I'm an architect in Finland, and a 16 story building is required to have at least 3 staircases of which 2 have to be emergency staircases. That's just the minimum, if there are lots of apartments ofc you'd add more according to how many people need to get out. This is atrocious.
@@kstina9563 it should never have been opened. It failed a building regulations inspection the year prior to me moving in. I was at the reception desk so much reporting faults. I believe they’ve now made an external staircase and changed the cladding.
As a first time buyer and leaseholder, with a £7.2 MILLION bill about to hit all of us in our FAILED B2 EWS1 building (100 flats), my home is now one of these unsellable and terrifyingly unsafe buildings to live in which will soon leave many of us bankrupt. Dealing with MPs, government, developers and no one will take any responsibility. Don't forget just to keep the building open whilst we are a failure, we pay extortionate insurance, fire marshals and new fire alarms!? Very well explained and put Evan, the more publicity the better.
In the US you could just walk away from the loan and let the bank take the house. Is that not doable in the UK? The house is the collateral so when you stop paying, the bank gets the house back.
@@quademasters249 but we would all loose the deposits and repayments we have made to our equity in the property. How is that a fair option. And in some circumstances it wouldn’t be worth it % wise
@@oliviahill8696 It's one of those questions where the "sunk cost fallacy" needs to be considered. Will you ever break even on this house or is it permanently tainted so, paying more money in doesn't make sense?
If you can reasonably assume that your house value will recover, it might be worth continuing to pay in. If it's looking like you've taken a permanent hit and are underwater then abandoning the house and any money's you've already spent might make sense.
Plenty of people abandoned their houses in the US in '08 because they suddenly found themselves $200,000 or more under water and they didn't expect values to recover. In hindsight they might have been wrong but it depends on location.
I'm surprised your government hasn't done more. I'd expect that in the US but not in the UK.
@@quademasters249 no on the US like the UK you are still jointly and severally liable for the mortgage and add such when the property is sold will be liable to pay off the house was in negative equity
Instead of posting the high insurance and sprinkler systems surely the money would be better spent getting the closing off and putting better cladding on.
I'm a certified Electrician and saw the overuse of PVC cladding and did not trust it at all, many in our industry have known this cladding was lethal.
Anyone who has burned some PVC will know how toxic and how freely it burns.
Some years back we had a drive to 'lag your loft', the free/subsidised rockwool turned out to be 'below current building regulations for a new build' [ bad order of cheap below standard old stock ] back then I knew 'they' did not care, they just wanted to appear to care...
What's even worse with Grenfell is that the block of flats was build in the 1960's when the area was working class and now it was a pocket of poverty in the middle of a very affluent area of literal mansions and millionaires. This block was mainly social housing owned by the council and the only reason it got flammable cladding was to make the building look less offensive to rich people.
Just to clarify, not all timber buildings are dangerous. There are many new developments (even tall buildings) made mostly from timber, for example in Finland, Sweden, Canada. When the build is according to the new safety codes, it can be safer than steel/concrete builds because it burns longer and predictably and keeps the structure stable.
This is true!
yes, same science that shows straw bale homes are also safe.
Grenfell cladding wasn't timber it was panels made from plastic and aluminium with air pockets insulating.
@@zounds4885 we know, but he mentioned timber balconies as highly flammable
@@zounds4885
OP: hey guys, did you know that material A is pretty safe?
Idiot: yeah but property Z wasn't made of that 🤪
Congratulations, you win the **Irrelevance** price 🥳👍🏼
So I worked for a fire code consulting engineering firm in Canada (am not an engineer), and Grenfell has been a case study for a while. The building was especially tragic as not only was the cladding not sufficiently fire-safe, it was installed improperly and had a gap of air in between the building and the cladding. The increased oxygen caused the building to go up far too quickly for people to have a reasonable amount of time to get out. Anywhere in North America and this shouldn't have passed inspection and the engineers, the city, and the developers would have been liable to some degree.
Isn't there supposed to be an air gap though?
@@pumpyronaldrump_4417 For secure computer systems you want an airgap. However I don't know much about architecture.
@@pumpyronaldrump_4417 The air gap makes it like a chimney, the fire heats the air which rises which draws more air in from the bottom of the cladding which feeds the fire. I'm no engineer either but I guess if the cladding wasn't flammable the gap would be a good thing and act as an insulation layer and help save on heating costs
@@Pegaroo_ yeah I'm pretty sure that's how cladding is supposed to work after having looked it up. But it being flammable... how can flammable cladding even be legally released to the market?
Anywhere in North America? 🤔
What about Florida?
The beach side condo building last year begs to differ! 😁
As a now-lethargic/given-up activist, it's so refreshing to see someone understand how deep the corruption goes in this country of simply trying to live somewhere.
Cynically enough, this only hurts well intending/behaved citizens...not the people actually responsible for this mess...
you will own nothing and be happy. Another trick to get everything, even those who have it paid off.
Reminds me of a movie "Les nouveaux sauvages" where a guy who got such a breakdown in face of unjust bureaucracy he put a bomb in his car so it blows in the bureau. He then became a hero.
A thing like what happened to these people happened to me I can't say I wouldn't resort to terrorism either. They care so little about us
@@TheLily97232 Have you read about them who are refusing adequate, suitable, accommodation. I noticed that no one was complaining about distance from places of work. That most. have been rehoused, it's a small number who refusing.
Yeah right. It's so corrupt that the government has already put laws into place forcing developers and landlords to bear the brunt of the cladding costs and not pass them on to those homeowners/leaseholders. Not forgetting that they are also forcing said landlords and developers to fix their own fuck ups in the first place.
Myself and 400+ other leaseholders are going through this pain in a large complex.
The leasehold terms are fair enough, but a management company has milked the tenants at every possible chance. It’s had a terrible effect on these innocent people and drastically reduced the saleability of our homes.
This is pertinent to me, as I'm saving for a first-time-buy, right now. Because the leasehold system is also broken, this means freehold is really the only option open to me, which means my only option is to keep saving.
The UK housing market isn't just broken, it's legalised racketeering. Always has been, although it's now reaching a pretty high crescendo, because the ability to keep that racket under some pretence of control, has now disappeared. Before, if a crisis got out of control, the money was there to fix it. But now, it's gotten so big, and so fragmented under privatisation, that the only solution would be to hold the developers to account. And there is currently no political will to do that.
This is catastrophically unfair, I understand the concept of keeping fire hazard flats out of the open market, but the government needs to step in for allowing them to be built in the first place. If they really want to make this a reasonable situation the government should step in and offer to buy these hazardous flats off the owners so they can repaired or demolished and the land repurposed down the road.
Ultimately, this mess lies at the foot of successive governments. They have allowed the dismantling of regulations and standards in the building industry.
That's probably what they're trying to do... let Blackrock buy them all up on the cheap as part of the Great Reset. "You will own nothing and be happy" (we will own everything and be even happier).
yes i agree the govt shouldstep in and sort this out ,
Thanks for highlighting this Evan! The lack of accountability for the people who actually OK'd the building materials is ridiculous, why are they crashing the housing market for them?!
Regulation and oversight in the building industry has been diluted for years to the point where there is practically no building inspection and self-certificate is allowed. Big developer has benefitted from government buying incentives and found new ways to screw over the homebuyer.
It used to be that a house was freehold, but developers started selling them as leasehold with the promise that after a qualifying period, the owner would have a chance to buy the freehold. Low and behold when it became time to buy the freehold, it had been sold on to a company who will generate income from new or ever more expensive charges.
There’s a lot of people out there that claim to be qualified, just because they’ve got a piece of paper to say so. The architects that ok this should be in jail
Unfortunately issues like this are everywhere it’s a scary thought. In Ireland currently there are houses crumbling because they were built using mica and other very soft materials peoples homes their money investments just crumbling in front of their eyes. It’s awful the corners being cut in the housing industry
Yep, and who foots the bill? The tax payers. The builders walk away scot free, with bulging wallets!
@@KernowWarrior The only way around it is a class action against the dev/con. That's if it's a legally viable option.
@Prosper Meniere Yeah, Donegal, Mayo, Sligo and Leitrim mainly, some other counties too.
People built homes with mica?? Of all things lol
@@alexreid1173 I know it’s crazy they cut corners with softer and cheaper materials and now homes are just crumbling down it’s awful just seeing bits of your house just break down in front of your eyes
it's so nice to live in a world where housing is unachievable and homelessness is ignored. people are great.
At least suicide booths are legal.
Jesus this is 4 years old? I really hate this world and the utter greed
Isn't it a wonder that the party of landlords and property developers makes rules that only help landlords and developers? 🤔
"Gove" is actually pronounced, "#@%&!!!!!" 🤬
That pronunciation makes sense
You do realise it was Blair and Labour who started this issue. The Tories were left with the clean up.
@@JohnSmith-oi3gf wow didn't realise Thatcher was in Labour. TIL
@@evan The tower was built under Thatcher but that was when it was a concrete tower block. It was Labour who approved the deadly cladding.Also in 2005 it was a Labour government that introduced the Regulatory Reform Fire Safety Order which changed the requirement to inspect a building on fire safety from the local fire authority - usually the fire brigade - to a responsible person. Laws which took effect in 2006 ended the practice of routine fire service inspections, passing the responsibility to councils.
Governments are in the pockets of the corporations and big business. They institute laws and regulations which are designed to allow them to do whatever. Little people like us have no stake.
Evan you literally continue to teach me more about my own country than anyone ever has in my 40 years on earth. Thank you. And yes, the government are shite.
I am astonished that so few ppl in the UK are aware of the building saftey crisis. It is estimated that 15% of all housing property in the UK is impacted by this issue. If leaseholders start defaulting we are at risk of another economy crash. This problem has been hitting the front pages for about 2 years and about 3 million leaseholders are stuck in worthless property.
you really should pay more attention then^ ignorance is ur own fault. IT's fine to learn a few new things, but not 40years worth^ ;P
@@KMartha22 I mean the UK already tanked quit hard thanks to Brexit so even more woudnt even be noticed .
@@xythiera7255 that's true, but when people find themselves in negative equity it will start hitting people directly. At the moment for many the impact of brexit isn't that direct. I mean yes inflation is high, but for middle class 10% increase in household expenses would not necessarily be felt.
@@xythiera7255 Wasn't the cladding required by the EU in the first place?
This is awful and stinks of incompetence.
My Dad was one of the HSE Inspectors first on site at Grenfell. The stories he told me of what he saw still give me nightmares.
I hope you two are doing OK. XC
Oh I'm so so sorry 🌻
You need to know it was no accident. It was a fire sacrifice. Planned. If you are normal this sounds crazy I know. Beyond ordinary people's comprehension. I was once 'normal'. But once you discover what is open and published in full sight and you can see what is going on. Very important they use not our calendar but the Luna Calendar. Any 'event' you like... Lockerbie, Hiroshima, Pearl Harbor...
@@ashleylaw ok
@@ashleylaw prove it.
Man, this really does make the whole "Eat the rich" slogan sound so much more reasonable.
For the first time ever I see the value in my HOA. Where I live (US) in a multiple family building we’re required to pay an extra fee to a home owners association. This fee goes to repairing shared spaces like the roof, the community pool, the gym, parking lot, sidewalks, basically anything not directly inside our unit. If this were to happen to my building the HOA would fix it, and then sue the 💩 out of the builder and who ever approved the permitting because we’re an incredibly litigious society. Then they’d assess the owners a special fee to cover the difference. The HOA does hold high reserves (3 million last I checked) so that would absorb some of the cost but at 30,000 per, probably not all of it. I’m sorry the people of London are going through that.
The housing market is a dumpster fire sadly at the moment, just bought a house and it was incredibly stressful!
I feel your pain!
Well maybe if it bothers you so much, make a video about it. (reads user name, wait a minute, he probably will ;)
Even Worse when these Elites and governments do this financial reset and do away with money the only people that will suffer are going to be the populations of the countries the governments and rich Elites will be comfy everyone else will lose their money and assets and this is coming.A Global financial Collapse .
I know buying can be difficult but my experience was completely opposite ...i decided to buy on a Friday looked for a house online over the weekend then viewed 4 properties the following Tuesday ...put a bid in the next day(didn't haggle) and by Friday(one week after deciding to buy) it was accepted...
100% mortgage with no deposit...
@@justincredible1375 you are correct, but in this case Grenfell and many high rise buildings belong to Tory donors of the Tory party, the Tory party allowed the owners of the buildings to cut corners, to save money, and therefore put profit before lives, in the case of Grenfell, before the cladding was put on, other political parties argued that safety checks and procedures shouldn't be put in place on all high rises, the Tory government refused to push this through, because the people who give money to their party are the building owners, hence past prime minister David Cameron is being questioned about Grenfell.
Dumpster fires are better contained and easier to put out. :(
As an older person this leasehold scam where the ground rent keeps increasing is a relatively recent thing. In my younger days I had a leasehold flat and my ground rent was a fixed annual amount for the duration of the lease. Many people seem to have been taken in with the scam because they didn't hire their own solicitors to go through the contract with them. They used the one supplied by the developer.
This is a big issue with a lot of housing developments across the country.
Even non developer recommended solicitors still put all information in the paperwork and you sign the agreement. It's down to how much they say and also how much research you do. If you aren't questioning the maintainence and ongoing costs that's a big problem on your side.
@@opaqueentity: the developer's "solicitors", in practice a licensed conveyancer, is not acting in the best interests of the buyer. However, an independent solicitors should be capable of looking at and interpreting the terms of the calls for payment. If they did not point out the detrimental clauses, that is negligence upon which you can sue.
@@eattherich9215 ideally yes but if they’ve gone through it all with you and you’ve still signed it that’s up to you. It’s amazing how many sensible normal people see maintainence fees etc as acceptable right up to the point that it isn’t.
And yeah never go with the ones developers reccomend. But then if you are dealing with developers you are already in a weak position.
@@opaqueentity even if you did do research, i feel like many property agents will also just say that these are standard terms and pressurize people to accept dodgy terms.
@@opaqueentity: I am not talking about terms that have been explained and accepted by the client, but clauses such as ground rents that double every five years that the professional failed to notice.
This is quite similar to the situation we're currently experiencing in New Zealand. We're a very seismically active country and have had several large earthquakes in the past decade (the most well-known being the Christchurch earthquake in 2011, which destroyed most of the downtown area) but there was another in 2016 which although less catastrophic caused a lot of damage to the capital city Wellington, which quite literally sits on a massive fault line. Building codes were massively updated as a result, which has led to many buildings (especially apartment blocks) being classified as extremely vulnerable in the case of a major quake.
However, it's basically been left up to apartment owners to pay out of pocket to get their buildings refurbished to the new code. If one person in the building can't afford it, then the work can't be done and people are stuck in a building that could very well collapse in an earthquake. There are no schemes available from the government, who've basically shrugged their shoulders and said 'oh well, good luck'.
I'm from Christchurch, so I can't even describe how horrifying this is. A major quake could happen tomorrow and so many people would die as a result.
Good to know - at least HMG has done 'something' so all the UK wingers need to move to New Zealand and have no Government support then they are also stuck. UK not so bad.
Even more of a thing because the whole area is at risk they are basically just saying , well you chose to live here!
After this video I must admit I’m a bit more paranoid about fire safety in my 6-storey Auckland building.
This is not accurately true, there is a subsidy scheme run by Kianga Ora NZ, the Residential Earthquake-Prone Building Financial Assistance Scheme, it’s not a giveaway of money rather a deferred loan at low interest. I know most people in earthquake prone buildings would rather someone else pay for the upgrades, but then you have to consider that could apply to anyone buying a property then finding there is problem with it.
Here in Croatia too, the 5.4 in Zagreb and 6.4 in Petrinja that's pretty close to Zagreb destroyed a lot of homes and people have to pay out of their pockets and if they want the country to help they would wait for up to 5-10 years to get a solution. This also creates the market where the apartments in the center that got destroyed their prices are so low and are gonna get bought by rich folk and those who are selling won't be able to get another property at the same price.
We're from the government and here to help. Unless we are on the developers / builder payroll. Nothing ever changes.
Buying a house on land owned by someone else seems to be all the downsides of buying property with all the downsides of renting property.
Like. I mean. That’s like buying a fork on someone else’s dinner plate (and none of the food).
Leasehold has existed for so long because it is a holdover from the days where the aristocracy owned all the land, the peasants were all tenants who paid to live on the land, it has never been abolished because so many MP's are also landowners/landlords. Oh and of course the Queen as well as her many many cousins would lose out on masses of annual income fleeced directly from the peasants.
This sucks. I hope you get a lovely property in the end! Buying a house is stressful enough on its own without all these extra factors.
Considering he's looking at a 25% share of a place that needs an EWS1 then no, he will not get a lovely property
This is a leasehold issue that has impacted millions.
My ex has a flat where the external balconies and walkways were condemned and all leaseholders got a bill of around £30,000 to replace them.
Without a lease system a percentage of owners would refuse to pay, then people all through the walkway and die and all the flats are worthless.
Yeah especially if it's a leasehold and you don't own the land, it's somewhat throwing the money away.
Regarding leasehold it was one of the few occasions of bad laws Margaret Thatcher tried to change, but when wealthy landlords like the then Duke of Westminster threatened to stop donations to the Tory party they back peddled.
cant believe there are still displaced people after Grenfell, whilst literally across the street there are empty million-pound houses that are owned by rich people who dont use them. disgusting
God, thank you for talking about this.
I live on a council estate, and still have horrible reactions whenever I hear any of my neighbours' fire alarms go off because we have no idea what our building's made of - we saw the New Providence Wharf fire while out on a walk and it definitely didn't help.
Stuck in this awful situation - though our cladding is not flammable, yet our EWS1 failed due to missing fire breaks. So unfortunately this whole mess is far greater than just cladding.
The building is 5 floors, no residents feel unsafe yet can’t sell or move and been stuck for 18 months. Ideal with two children….!
I’ll do you a great deal on my flat in Bromley lol.
Oh my god that sounds terrifying. How is that even legal? I just googled it and apparently UK citizens can't sue their government anymore. That's wild. That should be a human right. The government isn't perfect and shouldn't be above the law.
In 2016 the people of the UK voted for their government to "take back control" well, they got what they wanted. This is the result.
@@dimfre4kske67 yep
@@dimfre4kske67 It's worth remembering that those worst affected by this crisis are unlikely to have voted for Brexit.
@@dimfre4kske67 The cladding was required by the EU who we were members. You shouldn't be using this tragedy to work off your obsession
I very much doubt that EU required *this*.
I’ve followed this situation a little. But I was not aware that these buildings had apartment owners. This is horrific.
Bless you for talking/explaining this horrible process. This is so unbelievable. Spread the word!!
Absolutely excellent video. A couple of friends of mine were able to secure a mortgage on a flat recently and I'm hoping beyond hell that they don't get screwed over on this.
The fact that most of this stupid cladding was to "make the buildings look better" so was mostly applied to old low cost flats means that the people footed with the bill are probably people who are already just trying to make ends meet, and now they're stuck with a huge bill and no way out.
Tax on the poor because corners were cut so rich people didn't have to feel as bad when they looked at the poor people's housing. Disgraceful
Thank you Evan for publicising this awful Catch-22 situation. My heart goes out to the people affected by this problem.
This is actually insane 😦😦I study Architecture in Brazil, and the laws here are any structural or safety problems are the legal responsibility of the engineer / architect who signed off on the project. Not only that, but for a building to be be passed by the government, there are specific fire safety legislations for each type of building (use, height, area ) that must be approved by the fire department before the go ahead for construction
Government always makes the situation worse.
Thank you Tory government haha. Biggest taxes in british history right now.
The problem is having companies self report. The flammable cladding was against the regulations, but the construction company simply claimed they used some other material.
Thank you for making this. I bought my flat a couple of months before the Grenfell fire, I was SO lucky that my building is all brick construction, because I NEVER would have thought to check something like this and I could have so easily lost everything.
Just because a building is all brick construction doesn’t mean it is safe. I live in a converted, Victorian goods warehouse. A recent fire safety survey showed that the safety measures were not up to standard. Basically, the building was a death-trap, ill fitting doors, below standard fire lagging between floors, insufficient emergency lighting and more. The building was converted 30yrs ago and no one had kept it up to standard. Thankfully I’m with a housing association so I don’t have to foot the bill for the work they are currently doing on the building to put it right. Make sure your leaseholder is giving you value for money and keeping up to date with current and ongoing changes to legislation. Your paying the fee for them to do just that.
@Rachelhappyface: even if you had 'though to check' chances are the nature of any cladding would not have been disclosed. The only thing that matters is that materials are in line with regulations.
I remember seeing grenfell from my living room window before going to school as a ~8 yr old, and watching the scandal unfold. There was a hotel on my bus route that was almost completely torn down because it used this cladding and cut so many corners. As a young person who probably wont be able to leave this country, I am scared for my future.
@@ottakringcalling I think that person meant that saw the building before the catastrophe (like was living in the neighbourhood and the incident happened years later)
@@Bllairy On a second read, that makes much more sense :D. Thank you for that. For some reason my brain didn't work it out that way. Original garbage comment will be deleted.
isn't the problem quite specifically related to those tower block type buildings? unless you mean you already live in one of those, or you can't avoid buying a flat like that to live. Despite living in the UK I'm completely ignorant to anything Evan's said about his problems buying (and I've never heard of anyone having these issues when buying a home), and I live a million miles away from London where houses are quite cheap and I wouldn't rent/ buy a flat anyway, so forgive my ignorance if I'm being inconsiderate
@@ca1694 a lot of new buildings are built with this cladding, especially new/"affordable" housing. That means a lot of people trying to buy property are trapped in crap housing they can't sell, so their finances are fucked. Just because you live in a rural area doesn't mean you won't be affected either - our economy is already fucked from covid and austerity, and this housing crisis could tip us over the edge. Everyone will be affected, and the government are only protecting the developers because those companies are run by their mates who are profiting handsomely. It's a complete scandal
Only scared. Terror is appropriate.
It is criminal what has happened to flat owners who cannot move nor afford replacement cladding.
People should start setting their mortgage payments aside, out of the country. Make it the banks' problem and then you might get some action.
And a word of advice, never buy property if you don't own the whole building and the land it's on. This shouldn't be the victims' problem, but avoiding such schemes would have saved them the issue. If you want to live in the city, great, but rent.
And from the perspective of the builders, what they did was legal, and maybe they didn't even know the severity of the problem. This is going to have to be a parliamentary solution. Perhaps the government, owners, and builders each contribute equal thirds. Perhaps the government just fronts the money then worries about collecting the other 2/3 later.
Yes! If you really want to buy, buy the whole house and land in the country and still rent in the city. The rent or short term rental income can help offset the cost of your rent in the city.
Thank you for highlighting this issue. The best properties in the UK are old homes. I bought a new home in London Docklands and could hear everything my neighbour was saying as the walls were plaster. Homes dont pay leases or services charges. I hate that in flats.
I still amazed that flats near me in London now/still have to pay out EVERY DAY for a 24 hour watchman to simply just watch and monitor the outside of the building just in case it catches fire. The residents can’t get it sorted but also can’t leave it not sorted, so are having to subscribe and pay out for this temporary measure on repeat… it just blows my mind and angers me so much!
8:55 "Michael Gove [...] or however you pronounce it, he doesnt deserve to have it pronounced right"
LMAO XDDD
We really need a new government, this one’s been in place way too long and the country is deteriorating as a result.
Boris is just so incompetent
Suggestion: build a fake parliament in Peppa Pig World, put Boris and his goons there and act like they are still running the country. Meanwhile, people with actual competence and a mirror and a hairbrush can really run the UK.
@@ottakringcalling Boris can run Pepper Pig World to his heart's content.
@@Sparx632 Not well though, out of business in a year.
I agree but the reality is the Conservatives will be in power for the next 10-15 years because they control the media cartel and bamboozle ordinary Brits
There really is no point of participating because you don't matter.
It's bloody criminal, meanwhile MP's salaries keep getting paid ☹
This is disgusting. The developers should be held accountable. The government should be repairing these building. With the forms there will be corruption.
Respect for covering this. What you've experienced is just one part of the messed up system. The situation for renters and people who rely on social housing is also massively affected by this. When people with full-time jobs end up living in their cars, you've got to ask wtf is going on.
The system si being deliberately broken to disadvantage an increasely larger section of society.
@@eattherich9215 why do you say that? Who’s doing this? Why?
@@eattherich9215 It's called the Cloward-Piven Strategy, and it is designed to bring the system down so the authors can step in and rebuild it the way they want. It's a favorite of Marxists.
@@freethebirds3578
Neoliberalism started this shite.
They kept wages the same for
40 yrs, no benefits, part-time work for non managers
Inflation etc al.
There were no homeless when I was a kid.
You could get a job anywhere anytime. We didn't have credit scores then.
And a house cost a year or 5 of your wages.
Definitely there's a problem with the trickle down system...or maybe it's just drips when it gets to you. Real fkd.
@@freethebirds3578
Yes those globalists, tax incentives to have more children,
Then whoops we want it back now
Apparently this type of cladding has also been found in many parts of the US as well. It looks to be more common in the UK. So glad your bringing this to more peoples attention since the only articles I can find on it are from 2017.
I have been wondering how other governments have been dealing with this because I am certain it impacts a lot of countries.
In Australia we get it replaced with minimal costs.
@@annieinwonderland yes, we really need the UK govt to look to the Australian model to fix this 🤞🤞🤞
Homes in the US are far, far, easier and cheaper to retrofit. And it usually only affects one house here and there on rare occasion. So it never becomes a wide spread crisis like in the UK. Plus in the US people have the right to sue to recoup costs.
Only in London and other big cities. Most mortgage lenders won't lend on a building over 6 stories unless it's with a certain mile around the M25.
Even if you have the keys back you are still liable for the mortgage so no it won't cause economic pain just passing to the individual and I doubt the bill will get to passed. I'm sure a find may be set up but it won't cover everyone.
Here in Iowa, we just had our own extremely unfair law put into place. It used to be that when a home turned 100 years old, it would then be eligible for a century home grant, where the state government would provide funds to remodel and update the house to preserve it. All was great for a while, and my parents and I were counting on this to help with our house, which this very year turned 100. Only just this last year, they rewrote the law stating that only houses that were 100 years old and owned by the SAME family for all that time could get a grant. Now only about 5% of the old grants are given out. Convenient how much money the government saves with that.
Why should taxpayers pay for the upkeep of the house you own?
@@alanchase7329 Because they are trying to preserve old houses, and the grants are incentive for that. Plus my parents are both 80, and they don't exactly have the odd $20,000 just lying around to fix the roof and electrics. At the very least they are eligible for a loan because of their age to help fix the place, but the grant would have been nice as well.
A few other reasons that we see those type of grants given out are because older house can of have a ton of hazards & that many state have historical home renovation standards/laws.
Many old houses when build of course do not fit modern building code/laws, on top of that older buildings can also have a ton of renovations that were undocumented & don't meet building codes. There is also the problem that many older building, (though honestly almost any home in the US mass built before the 80s & sometimes 90s that was not renovated,) will most likely have a large portion of hazards materials used. Lead in the house from paint & other finishing materials, asbestos, random insulation, timber & other materials treated with toxic or flammable material, old electrical & old plumbing, etc. Since there are so main problems in much older buildings, many that were not renovated throughout there life, many often don't make it or those that do often are to much of a cost to buy, possibly not liviable, and have costly renovations that must be done.
There are many place that are now trying to preserve older builds because honestly the history for most of them are amazing, but because of all the issues I listed above many buildings will not make it another 50yrs if not actively invested in. However, the push to try & preserve older buildings has brought some of it own problem in many places. I guess the big two ones are zoning, as well as some state/citys historical preservation laws. In some state/cities where zoning have changed dramatically it can mean that a older homes property value is basically worthless. Think of the movie UP, a older home ending up in a commercial, entertainment, or industrial area. The twist is though that sometimes it isn't the issue that the owner want to keep the house, but instead that because of the areas laws regarding the historical significance of a build that property cannot be sold for demolition & the house may not be allowed to be moved as well. The other issue is that sometimes the zoning makes it impossible for people to now maintain there home. In many places there are historical districts & societies that have strict standards on how older homes are maintained & renovated. That means that if your home falls under those rules, that while having to bring that house up to date on certain building codes you are not allowed to work outside of the home time period &/or style. Depending on what the historical standards are it could be as simple as not being able to put modern Windows in place (though even that can mean the home is less energy efficient so the owner will have high utilities over all,) or only being allow to use vintage fixtures (depending on what it falls under this can mean expensive restoration or out right tracking down costly vintage replacements.) On the flip side stricter standards geared to full restoration can mean that the owner is unable to use modern materials almost completely & unable to use non specialized builder/contractors. A good example would be artisan homes that have complex handmade masonry & woodwork through out. In essence if an older home is classified as historical there is a very good chance that the home owner is very limited on what can & can't be done to a home with maintenance standards that are very costly. Zoning changes with the possibility of historical standard can also mean that a older home could fall outside of an area that is granted aid to help maintain the home which can make upkeep almost impossible.
So overall older home/building receive grants in many place because they are tangible examples of an area history/ingenuity/and creativity. These building also help keep skilled craftsmanship on view for the general public, which can help keep those trades from being lost. However, because older building can have such costly upkeep, be hazardous, and limit the owners ability to move/sale/or renovate many states\cities find it more cost effective to award grants or other assistance to insure that the building are maintained & brought to code without have to take on the full responsibility themselves. Basically it helps to mitigate public safety issues, which in return means less vacancy & condemn buildings, which then helps maintain/increase the property values for the area, which then mean a better probability of maintaining/increasing the population, and because of all of that, (as well as having restored historical building to draw in tourist,) a state/city can put little effort into an area but have large gains in commerce & development.
Edit: Ignore the typos, I just noticed my auto-correct/fill decided to help me write...so yeah I'm not fixing it.
@@alanchase7329 And to piggyback off of/extend the other two excellent illuminating answers already given -- because the taxpayers have to pay a LOT more in the end for public health costs and emergency services costs if upstream factors that affect health and safety, like hazards of old un-updated buildings, aren't addressed.
The all-too-common attitude of "Why should ***I*** have to pitch in on things that are for everyone's benefit?" in this country is exactly why we're all so screwed already and have so much of our taxes going toward cleaning up the many, many messes that that damned ignorant selfish shortsighted attitude has created for us. If you take basic care of people in the first place, by making sure they can eat and be housed safely and access good education and good jobs without constantly facing all sorts of hazards, then they cost society less and contribute more in the long run. It's well-established fact that most civilized nations these days -- the ones with great public health and quality of life, where American expats are trying to flee to right now if they can afford it -- have been basing policy on for a long time.
@@ItsAsparageese If the house has been in the same family the grant still applies. If the house has been sold, possibly for profit, over the years the grant does not apply. I would think that just like normal properties the houses are priced with the need for various maintenance taken into account each time they are sold. I do however see your point.
This is disgusting! What the hell? I am really worried not only about Britain's future...
My grandparents bought a place that was supposed to have fire proof wood on the outside. They bought it from the property developer. The property developer never provided the document that goes with the fire proof wood to prove its authenticity. When an engineer came to look at the wood, it turns out the wood is just normal wood that was painted to look like the right now.
Apparently the developer loosing that safety proving document is not a problem and now all the responsibilities are on my grandparents. So now they live in a flat that could burn down and that they will struggle to sell with nothing that they can do about it.
I'm glad you've made this video as a lot of people don't seem to be aware of the issue. I'm currently living in a rented flat with various fire safety issues. My partner and I are looking to buy, but most flats in the area have fire safety issues. Stories such as you mentioned of the person buying a flat with an EWS1 then it being revoked after 30 days from purchase make me terriefied of ever buying a flat.
Thank you so much for this. Grenfell left people's awareness far too soon. The inhabitants are being treated appallingly and building companies are hoping that with all the other mess going on the cladding will be forgotten. I'm lucky enough not to live in a high-rise and Grenfell has made one the last place I want to live in
When the companies asked for immunity from prosecution in exchange for co-operating with the investigation, the police should have been sent in to secure all the company records immediately on that day and the companies investigated immediately. They were admitting being involved in criminal negligence that led to multiple deaths.
We know exactly how you feel. My partner remortgaged his flat. As part of the process the EWS1 form was required. Our issue was that it required the freeholder to complete, who refused to do so. We ended up being stuck between their agent, the mortgagee and the technician. The ridiculous situation was that the building should not require the form, due to its height. The outside walls are around 95% brick with small decorative cladding panels that would not be considered any issue. Yet the lender falsely insisted on it. Fortunately, after a lot of being messed around, we went to a different mortgagee who agreed the EWS1 wasn't necessary! They completed the remortgage in 10 days. The precious company had stolen 2 months.
The actual cladding insulation material itself has the highest fire safety rating possible. However, it only obtained this rating for installation flat against the wall.
It was never tested in situations where the cladding has an air gap between the wall and the cladding with the insulation in open backed panels.
An easy and quick fix is to remove the panels and install a sealing panel on the back.
It is amazing that this could happen and staggering that having happened, it has not been fixed immediately. The leasehold system remains in place because it is fabulously profitable for very well connected people. Belgravia is built on land leased from His Grace, the Duke of Westminster, who is fabulously wealthy as a result. C'est la vie.
Thank you for the video!
Ground rent was abolished in Scotland and Ireland. It could also be abolished in England but it suits the great and good to keep their own nests feathered. It's a disgrace and people need to make it a serious political issue or it will not change.
Grenfell should have brought the government down, an absolute travesty. The whole leasehold/freehold situation in England is ridiculous. When we bought our leasehold flat we also bought a 1/3rd share of the freehold. This technically makes me my own landlord. The previous owner did not maintain the property as laid out in the leasehold agreement so right now I could sue myself for breach of contract.
The Grenfell Tower cladding was not timber. It was some kind of foam plastic covered on outside with a thin aluminium sheet. Not only was the plastic highly flammable, but the aluminium sheet protected it from water the firemen tried spraying on it . The whole side of the 20+ story building went up in flames in minutes.
@@olmostgudinaf8100
I love my brominated fire retardants.
I am surprised that a full on class action naming the overseeing ministry, developers, manufacturers, and inspectors has not been pushed through to hold these groups accountable. But then again, it is also entirely believable as it is likely that all groups signed sketchy deals to cover their asses
The planning and building regulations are designed to enable big developer. Further, contract and leasehold law puts the developer at a distance from any liability. A developer can say this is the fault of the contractor or contractors, but the person damaged by any negligent acts cannot sue the contractor or contractors because of the doctrine of 'privity of contract' that is to say you cannot sue someone unless you are in a contractual relationship with them.
Class action is an American thing - we don't really have an equivalent in the English legal system. A group called Manchester Cladiators is crowd sourcing funds to pursue a claim against the govt though.
The buyers need to bring a class action against the UK govt.
I was going to buy a condo in Hawaii until I found out about the lease hold situation. As far as the bill they may pass, the builders will just declare bankruptcy to get out of paying and everyone will be back to square one. Look at what happened at Love Canal.
There is a way to force change: all of the people who are stuck in that situation (I mean the individual owners, f*ck the developers/banks) should all band together and default on their mortgages all at once. The economy will tank because the banks will have such a huge issue on their hands and the government will have to do something immediately. And the people can't allow any compromises - cutting corners and compromises and weakness are what created the situation in the first place. If people would only just realize that they are more powerful than they think, maybe somethings could actually change. But you have to hit those in power where it actually counts, where they actually will take notice: their pockets.
The economy will not tank. One banks in London handles overnight transactions of $2,000,000,000,000. That is just one!! The value of these properties is absolutely peanuts and would have zero impact on the economy.
Something similar to this, but on a smaller scale, happened in Ireland during the financial crisis around 2010 when people defaulted by necessity over a short period. It involved maybe 15-20% of domestic mortgages and it caused a sufficiently large liquidity problem in banks that changes were made, although not all of them good. If a larger percentage of domestic borrowers acted together it would appear, on the basis of history, that they would indeed be a force that would command respect. They might not bring down banks but they would certainly cause a change of underpants in bank boardrooms.
If they all stopped paying the mortgage on their death traps the government is more likely to bail out the banks than the homeowners!
I'm surprised that people still pay their mortgages. If I were in this situation I'd spend a few months finding the best legal action and best way to handle a bankruptcy then refuse to pay the mortgage.
I'd rather have my assets wiped out and have to start over than throwing 100K away on something legally worth nothing and is a fire hazard.
@@mbak7801 Your heart pumps about 2,000 gallons (~7570 litres) of blood per day. A single gallon, by comparison, is 'peanuts;' yet if you lost that amount in the same day, you probably wouldn't fare well. Just as blood serves as a medium of exchange for oxygen, money serves as a medium of exchange for value; the amount transacted is not necessarily indicative of the amount of lost value required to precipitate an economic crisis.
This is the reason I can’t have a doormat in front of my doors. Like a doormat will make the situation any worse if the building is already on fire. I got three warnings about it saying it’s a potential fire hazard.
Technically true though.
If it caught fire, it could create enough heat to burn through the protective layer of paint on your door, which could then catch fire.
Of course, it probably wouldn't burn from a cigarette or whatever, so you'd probably need petrol or at least a dropped candle to make it catch fire - and once the goalposts are moved to being arson-proof, I doubt that the hallway and door themselves would pass...
So it's still a pretty bullshit argument of theirs
I thought it was because it was a trip hazard that no doormat allowed outside the door
Yes we’re not allowed doormats in my building! But without a doormat at the bottom we all slip on the stairs when it rains. It’s so daft!
Was a first responder for that Grenfell disaster. Gave me PTSD. This was the tipping point as my mother attempted to murder me in a house fire 😢
WHA-
You've posted like 5 bullshit stories in these comments 😅
@@AwwYouTried8639 who? Me?
I’m not sure what the point is of this comment. Bizarre.
I just waited 5 months for a NO CHAIN flat purchase to go through and paid 7 GRAND in fees for my trouble. The UK housing market is 100% a total JOKE!
I don't think I would ever buy property in the London area. We almost got transferred there and were warned about all the issues you mentioned. The leasing of the land thing is bizarre. I love to visit but I was glad we didn't get moved there.
As an Englishman that's living in the US, and have done for half my life, I am beginning to understand this litigious country more and more. If I were in the predicament Evan describes, I'd sue, failing that, i'd default on my mortgage, get everyone out and burn it to the ground (and take the insurance, assuming they're even still insurable at this point?), take the bankruptcy, whatever, it's not worth the risk to my life. Someone will pay, and I'd do everything in my power to make sure it's not the fucked over owners of the units.
I very much doubt they are covered for fire anymore.
Its the old joke concerning insuring the SierraCosworth
(each yearly premium including theft cover was the price of the car itself)
as the Cosworth was EXPECTED to be stolen and written off.
"...and burn it to the ground..."
That's called arson. It is a) not covered by your insurance and b) a criminal act.
insurance policies in the affected properties are astronomical now
So many times iv seen land for sale,
That is not buildable listed as buildable, or- buyer must do due diligence, there is always something wrong with the land, it's a wetland- or
Simply uninhabitable land locked advertised as accesable etc, wondering if I should just buy a houseboat.
In the UK if you default on a mortgage, it's still a debt you are legally obliged to pay, even if the house it relates to no longer exists. If it was a multi-occupied building the insurance might be claimable only by the freeholder or freeholders not the occupants. It would be unlikely to find a high rise building where everyone owned their flats and they were all insured.
I’m an engineer and have worked on clarifying the hazard potential of dams. It’s not an exact science, and I can definitely see how people might come up with different ratings… 😞 I think chartered engineers in the UK need five or so years of experience, whereas in the United States we need five years of experience and to pass two 8-hour exams. It’s also fairly easy to lose your license should you mess up on something - I’m guessing it’s similar in the uk, and they are a bit nervous about it. This sounds like a big mess. The only thing that can really step in and fix it is probably the government…
A big part of the problem now is that everyone is so cautious and won't put their name to anything that says a block of flats is safe - Evan had that issue with someone refusing to upload the docs to the portal. So even if your block is safe, nobody will confirm it so insurance is sky high and nobody will mortgage a flat.
Leasehold properties have now gotten such a bad name since the Grenfell disaster that now people have been put off even contemplating purchasing a leasehold property. Also, beware of buying recently built freehold properties because in some instances, for a number of reasons, owners of certain freehold properties also have to pay maintenance fees which can be absolutely extortionate - over £10,000 per year in some cases. This is because the local councils have not spent money on providing suitable roads nearby plus other amenities that are normally in place when one purchases freehold. Councils are trying to save taxpayers money here and leave the responsibility of providing a local road system to private companies who then pass the maintenance costs for those roads to new freehold buyers.
So, even before buying a new freehold property, be very careful and do your research and look out for the pitfalls. Older freehold properties (more than 10 years old, say) are a much safer bet because councils own the surrounding roads and footpaths etc., so the onus is on them (the local council) to maintain them and not the individual property owners.
You can even get charged for "gardens" when all there is literally a couple of flowers in a bed. But when it's lifts etc you understand it. But you agree to all these extra costs when you sign your contracts.
Roads are normally not adopted by councils until the whole development is finished which could be decades away in some cases.
"owners of certain freehold properties also have to pay maintenance fees which can be absolutely extortionate - over £10,000 per year in some cases"
"There's one for you, nineteen for me"
DO NOT buy a leasehold house. The promise that you will be able to acquire the freehold after a qualifying period is a barefaced lie. At the end of the qualifying period, home owners often find that the freehold interest has been sold on without notice.
@@eattherich9215 in many cases there’s not even that promise anymore.
Freeholds with management covenants are actually worse than leaseholds, because at least leasehold service charges and ground rents are regulated by law.
"You don't want to die in a fire in an unsafe flat." Personally, I just don't want to die in something called A FLAT. 😒
People need to follow my advice from the 1980s (and my parents in the 1960s) and my father's parents in the 1930s. Buy a freehold house even if you have a long commute. No leasehold. no flats. No common parts. Secondly rule - buy with two professional salaries and buy before you breed. Third rule - Steer clear of anything newly built.
Best advice.
The best way to solve this is to literally stop paying your mortgage.
The property is the underlying asset, which they can seize and kick you out of.
And then they have a property on their balance sheet that they themselves defined as having zero value (but which still has some maintenance costs).
You'll probably find that the banks are suddenly willing to offer the inhabitants association a loan that covers the re-cladding.
Or else, you at least won't be the one who has to worry about selling the place.
100% this!
Your risking destroying your credit rating to bluff with a bank who can afford to have an unsellable 200k asset as they know the issue will be resolved before they have to sell it
@@petehall1985 Exactly, and now you're out however much you put as a down payment and mortgage payments, and YOU CAN NEVER GET IT BACK. Essentially, you have hundreds of thousands of pounds of sunk cost, which could bankrupt you.
Forgive me if I’m confused but if your property is seized won’t you lose your life savings?
@@valerieblackwood9777 better to lose your savings than your life if the worst should happen while living in a building that isn't safe. Money can be replaced, people can't.
I live in Salford and thankfully, the council are replacing the cladding on all of the high-rise buildings. Except the student accomodation buildings.
It seems to me that the people who should be eating the cost of these repairs are the government and the developers. They created the problem, they should have to fix it.
When you buy a home, that home comes under the assumption that it is safe to live in. If it turns out it is not safe to live in, who eats the cost of making it safe?
You're a legend for bringing public awareness to this complete clown show! The government needs to step in and fix their mistake and your outreach is a step in the right direction
It's terrible that you are going through it, but great that you are informing everyone. Thanks for that!
So glad you're bringing attention to this.
Fun having my life described in such detail.
I managed to move out and let my apartment out, though kinda cheaply, so still sucks to have my money tied up in a flat I can't sell.
It also means I have to pay more than 10k extra in taxes if I buy myself a new place because the taxes are higher if you own two properties 🤷♂
This story feels so big that if John Oliver lived in UK he would cover this story in Last week tonight. I feel like I will need to watch it twice to fully understand it.
The story is out there and has been well publicised. The weird portal bit Evan has had is very weird though.
oh Johnny boy is our savour!
I am glad I caught this post it's very enlightening. After years ago my local council was offering cladding on the exterior of homes in the county for the handsome sum of 10 thousand pounds repayable over ten years with interest another scam by local government authority. Needless to say I refused and organised home insulation myself. Its so sad for people stuck in those flats 😪
Yes the developers should be paying. However also: the manufacturer of the cladding who falsely claimed it had the required fire rating should be putting funding in to replace it.
something similar happened in Australian highrises but instead of catching on fire, these buildings are cracking, cracking to the point where the buildings are literally standing empty and nobody is allowed to re-enter not even to get their clothes, or cars still parked in the garage, so of course, they cant sell on the apartments. What is worse is that many more people are living in these buildings made out of the same material and are completely unaware of the fact.
I think (in both the UK and Australia) that govt should buy back these homes, not for what they were bought for, but for what they would be sold for today if they were in good condition, and either demolish them if they are too far gone or reclad the buildings themselves and then use them for state housing, (coz every country is short on state housing) but unfortunately, nothing like this will happen.
The people who are victims of this need to do a class action against the government to get their money back coz at the end of the day it might be the developer that cut corners but not only did the govt allow this to happen, they made it legal to do so.
Conservative UK government is focussed on making as much money as possible and I’ve yet to see any genuine evidence of them caring for the people they’re responsible for
Having a flat of your own doesn’t even seem like that much of a victory at this point but maybe is still better than leasing
Well it's still leasing you are just allowed to move your furniture around and paint it different colours. Really the leaseholders should be ultimately responsible for the building they let people build on their land since they are still claiming leasehold money for. Sadly there are probably 20 holding companies between the poor human in the building and the rich human who owns the freehold.
@@lucie4185 😶☠️
I used to scoff at developing countries lack of building regulations and corruption, only to discover it's been going on in the UK for decades.
If the tenants got together and told their mortgage holders to contact the govt and do something about this or they refuse to pay their mortgage and let the banks have them. Banks have the clout with the British government to get this resolved!