CladdingPrisoner
@cladding_prison
Held hostage in 'affordable' #SharedOwnership #leaseholdscandal - charged thousands for #wakingwatch and defective #cladding caused by corrupt UK Government
You might like
"Affordable" housing associations charging shared ownership leaseholders for #wakingwatch and fixing non compliant #cladding. These are not "repairs" - it was a defect in the first place. @RobertJenrick @mhclg @ukcag @CladdingScandal #EndOurCladdingScandal
. @British_Airways I'm getting married in <24hrs and our #luggage #delay in #BER since yesterday, so we've no groom suit and no wedding dress. #BA staff forced us to check in hand luggage but plane left without it. Tracking shows bags not found. #Wedding ruined - or can you help?
This is rather the point. The gov have no right to cancel previous build regu approval and re-evaluate safety levels, unless they agree culpability and cover costs. If they do, as they are trying to do, that is a fundamental breakdown of rule of law and morally abhorrent.
.... fire safety field as a senior fire brigade officer & one of HM. Fire Services Inspectors specialising in fire safety. If you would be interested in knowing what I have to say on this matter, please DM me for a confidential response & I will prepare a paper & email it to you.
The Building Safety Bill forces costs to leaseholders and reevaluates recently completed building safety levels. Neither is acceptable without Gov covering ALL COSTS. The BSB / Act must not pass.
So, you admit Gov did fail to regulate so why are we (or the developers) to pay ? It‘s Gov fault. So pay. And why did you relax the regs under 18m yet still require remediation ? We won’t pay loans. We won’t rest.
PAS9980 is not acceptable as it contradicts current and previous building regulations. It is also vague and another open cheque opportunity for the fire industry. And the cost implications of this will be major. We, leaseholders WILL NOT PAY. PAS9980 will makes things worse.
A few more facts about the cladding crisis are: 1. The building industry does not have the capacity to remediate the cladding in anything less than 20+ years. 2. Leaseholders cannot possibly pay for the remediation. No way. 3. Why does HMG. not wake up to these impossibilities?
Amid a flurry of coverage of the misery being caused by the cladding scandal this week, I think it's worth explaining that this problem comes from 30 years of building regulation failure and the fact that the government has not taken responsibility for that (thread)
.@michaelgove please listen to @cyrilmoseley he knows what he is talking about
Let's see what we know about this situation. 1. Cladding is low fire risk. 2. Any risk from the cladding that does exist can easily be mitigated by sprinklers. 3.Sprinklers have a 94% reliability factor & 99% effectiveness factor. 4. Sprinklers will usually extinguish a fire
1. Advice notes Dec 2018 and Jan 2020 2. They haven’t for under 18m. The ‘banned‘ materials still comply with building regulations for a new building Yes, it’s utterly absurd and a clear scam Gov are incompetent and don’t even hide it.
“Days away from a fire”. That’s what I was told this week. I’ve been reading with horror about the #BuildingSafetyCrisis and here is my experience(s) of ongoing negligence from property developers: liammckinnon.com/2021/11/buildi… #EndOurCladdingScandal
Governments past and present caused the #claddingscandal, nobody else. If developers built buildings that are now considered dangerous, it's because the government regulations (or lack of enforcement of them) allowed it to happen. Now UK gov must pay for its mistakes.
2. Few cladding fires in thousands of tower blocks over many years must indicate the risk is at the lower end of the spectrum. 3.Cladding does not self- combust, it must be ignited. 4. If fires in flats are confined or extinguished before they reach cladding, risk is mitigated
Hi Jack, I emailed Michael Gove in his capacity as Housing Minister and pointed out a few factors for him to consider, if he really is looking for a new approach to the cladding fiasco. I have listed these below. 1. No attempt has been made to quantify the cladding risk. .......
Actually the opposite to what’s just happened. Cladding Scandal - They introduced retrospective legislation to MAKE us liable Paterson Scandal - They introduce legislation to REMOVE Paterson from liability.
Anxiety may be unnecessary in respect of fire risk, but it most certainly isn't as far as costs are concerned. HMG. could resolve this whole issue in about an hour if only one of them could acquire a second brain cell.
#PolluterPaysBill - if the developer did NOT breach regulations at the time of construction (eg. timber cladding <18m was, and still is compliant) but EWS1 etc now requires it to be replaced, what happens? (Genuine question) @EOCS_Official @LiamSpender
No grants either. This is government’s problem and government must pay and organise. They have let US down and we are angry.
My son has a £45k+ bill to replace wooden cladding & balconies. Here is CURRENT approved documents building regulations (2020). See red READ IT This IS wall combustibility
Leaseholders have been batting on the wrong wicket. Unsafe cladding , faulty installation and safety Bills should be nothing to do with them. They are in the game because leasehold law allows developers to pass on the costs of design changes to them. LAW is the wicket for them.
United States Trends
- 1. Clemson 9,565 posts
- 2. #SmackDown 43.3K posts
- 3. Zack Ryder 13K posts
- 4. Dabo 1,618 posts
- 5. Landry Shamet 4,705 posts
- 6. Matt Cardona 2,412 posts
- 7. #CLAWMARK3D 20.6K posts
- 8. #OPLive 1,980 posts
- 9. Miller Moss N/A
- 10. Brohm N/A
- 11. #BostonBlue 2,494 posts
- 12. Marjorie Taylor Greene 32.4K posts
- 13. Will Richard 4,393 posts
- 14. Kon Knueppel 2,208 posts
- 15. Ersson N/A
- 16. Steph 30.3K posts
- 17. #TNATurningPoint 7,486 posts
- 18. Charles Lee N/A
- 19. Tre Mann 5,285 posts
- 20. Bill Clinton 165K posts
Something went wrong.
Something went wrong.