Building Safety Bill

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 28th February 2022 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Blencathra]

46: Clause 93, page 102, line 8, at end insert “after consulting the residents”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a leaseholder in a block of flats near here that has some remedial work not currently covered by the latest government proposals. I rise to move Amendment 46. In the customary spirit of this Committee, let us begin with my favourite building quote, which I learned in school and then used inappropriately all the time, as one does. Horace boasted that his Odes would be remembered like this; I commend the quote to my noble friend the Minister, since this is how this Bill will be remembered if he accepts the amendments of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and my humble self. Horace wrote:

“exegi monumentum aere perennius


regalique situ pyramidum altius,

quod non imber edax, non Aquilo inpotens

possit diruere”,

or

“I have built a monument more lasting than bronze,

higher than the Pyramids’ regal structures,

that no consuming rain, nor wild north wind

can destroy”.

That is the legacy my noble friend can have with this Bill, if he does the right thing. Let us crack on with proper work now.

Amendments 46 to 55 relate to Clauses 93 to 99. Of course, we have the excellent proposed new clause set out in Amendment 50A, which was tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and which has also been signed by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham and me. I look forward to hearing their speeches on it and will not trespass there except to say that the right reverend Prelate’s amendment may be a lot better than mine. I was moved to table my amendments in this group because, when I read Clauses 93 to 99, I was struck by how weighted against leaseholders they were. Since then, we have had the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, which seem to come from the same assumption that the odds are stacked against residents. I look forward to hearing what she has to say on this as well.

In Clause 97, there seems to be an assumption that leaseholders are going to smash up and remove safety equipment from our buildings. Why in the name of God would we do that? Where has this crazy notion come from? We all paid good money for our properties. We bought them and it is in our vested interest to maintain and add value to them. Why on earth would we, in a million years, want to diminish that? It just does not make sense. Perhaps at Report noble Lords might be tempted to move that these clauses do not stand part of the Bill. Under them, we can be served contravention notices, access to our flats can be demanded and the accountable person can be given rights to take us to court, yet there is not a single balancing right for leaseholders to take action against the accountable person, who is more likely to be at fault, if our experience of managing agents is anything to go by.

Amendment 46 says that the accountable person can draw up the strategy “after consulting the residents”. Do we not believe in prior consultation before foisting a strategy on the people who have to comply with it? If a Minister did this, he would be up for judicial review for not doing proper consultation first. Amendment 46A says that, where there is a residents association, the accountable person must draw up the strategy in conjunction with its members and it must be agreed by them. Quite simply, they have the right to be involved and their buy-in is essential if the leaseholders are to happily sign up to the strategy.

Getting that buy-in is vital because we all know that the accountable person, who is likely to be the managing agent, will gold-plate every aspect of this strategy to increase the value of the landlord’s holdings. This morning, just for fun, I checked the price of a 6-kilogram standard dry powder fire extinguisher—a simple bit of safety equipment we would all expect to see. The most expensive came in at £171.75, while the cheapest was £31. They had exactly the same contents, were the same weight, had the same ingredients and would have the same firefighting ability, but we all know which one the landlord, freeholder and managing agent would buy and charge us for the privilege. It would be the gold-plated one—literally, in this case, I think. If accountable persons have a free hand to draw up these strategies, I am afraid that leaseholders will get ripped off.

Amendment 47 deletes Clause 93(5), which proposes that Clause 93(4)(a) does not apply where the accountable person is not aware of the resident or has taken reasonable steps to be aware of the residents. That is not good enough, in my opinion. This cop-out provision is not acceptable; managing agents or accountable persons could devise a strategy and claim that they could not find the residents to whom it applies and therefore could not consult them. “Accountable” means being accountable, knowing your residents and tracking them down, with no excuses—it is as simple as that.

Amendment 48 adds additional potential powers for the Secretary of State to make regulations. Again, I am not suggesting that he has to make them or building into the law that this has to happen, but this would give him a permissive power to act if he found a problem. It allows him to make further provision about the content of an engagement strategy and the way it is issued. That is small beer and pretty innocuous stuff which I am sure my noble friend can accept. I will be disappointed if he says he cannot.

Amendment 49 attempts to apply the same sanctions that are imposed on residents in Clauses 97 and 98. Clause 94 permits residents to request information from an accountable person but there is no sanction whatever if the accountable person fails or refuses to provide it. That is simply wrong; it is not a quid pro quo because, the other way round, residents are compelled to co-operate with the accountable person. I believe that the resident has as much right to demand compliance as the accountable person, who can demand compliance from residents and issue contravention notices under Clause 98.

Clause 95 states that the accountable person must set up a complaints procedure, but there is no sanction if he fails to do so. My Amendment 50 would give the Secretary of State an additional regulation-making power to create penalties for the failure of a principal accountable person to create such a complaints procedure. Again, I am not saying that the Secretary of State must do it and I am not setting out the penalties; I am just asking the Secretary of State to take the power of a regulation in case they need to use it in future because an accountable person has failed to set up a complaints procedure.

My Amendment 51 seeks to widen the potential definition of “relevant safety item”. At the moment, it is tied to “common parts” as defined in Section 69. That may or may not be good enough—I am not expert enough to know—but my amendment would change it to anything that may be defined in regulations. This would give more flexibility because, of course, regulations can be changed at any time, at the stroke of a ministerial pen, whereas an amendment to Section 69 would require primary legislation.

My Amendments 52 to 55 seek to delete “county court” and substitute it with “regulator”. I accept that the regulator may not be the right person but I think that it is heavy-handed to give the accountable person the right to go to the county court and threaten leaseholders that way. If we have a new regulator and First-tier Tribunals and an ombudsman, why drag the county court into it? Surely one of those bodies could be designated as the person to whom the accountable person goes to demand action from residents. I get the feeling that these clauses were designed to scare residents with the threat of court—for example, the accountable person saying, “Do this or we’ll take you to the county court”. That is heavy-handed; I believe that the regulator, the ombudsman or someone else should have that power instead.

My Amendment 85 would introduce a new clause to provide that, if a person with an interest in a property conducts a survey on it, they must share that information with everyone else who also has an interest in the property. Again, it is a power for the Secretary of State to introduce regulations if he is so minded; he is not forced to do so. My reasoning behind this is that we will get some landlords, freeholders and managing agents undertaking surveys of safety risks then saddling leaseholders with huge remedial costs while not sharing the safety report. Leaseholders would have to do their own at extra cost; that may not happen. There can be no justification for a safety survey undertaken by anyone in the building not being shared with everyone else in the property.

Finally, Amendment 87 would permit the Secretary of State, if he were so minded, to introduce regulations to permit the regulator, ombudsman or anyone else designated by the Secretary of State

“to act on behalf of a leaseholder or group of leaseholders in taking action against a developer, contractor, landlord or freeholder in relation to complaints about fire hazard remediation.”

We all know that a leaseholder challenging managing agents, freeholders and landlords is a real David and Goliath battle. In this case, David would not have a sling, or even a single pebble to fire at them. Leaseholders need a champion to fight their corner. My proposed new clause would permit the Government to appoint a champion and recover the costs so that the taxpayer does not have to pay a penny.

As I said, surely my noble friend the Minister cannot reject all these amendments as not technically correct or necessary because almost all of them would simply grant the Secretary of State permissive regulatory powers. He would not have to implement a single one of them but I would grant him the powers to make regulations if, at some time in the future, some of these problems arose and the Government had to act. Let us build a permissive regulation-making power into the Bill now so that the Secretary of State can use it in future if need be. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

I am sorry; with the sheer length of the debate, we are now approaching the two-hour mark, so I hope that my noble friend will forgive me if I did not address that specific point. However, I did address the point that the Valentine’s Day amendments, tabled on 14 February, were made in haste. The work around impact assessment was therefore not carried out at that time, but obviously we intend to update our impact assessment to reflect all the amendments that the Government have brought forward; that is the good practice my noble friend seeks, I think.

I thank noble Lords for this debate, which has been an important and necessary part of the scrutiny of this legislation. I hope that, with the reassurances given, noble Lords will be happy to withdraw or not press their amendments. This has been a feast of a debate so let us conclude it with the two words that we used to say in our formal hall: benedicto benedicatur.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, we have spent two hours on this group of amendments. It is probably the second-most important group in the Bill, after the one we dealt with last week. There were more than 45 amendments down, so I make no apology that we have spent considerable time discussing them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 65, which would modify the major statement in government Amendment 64. I was greatly encouraged when my noble friend the Minister sent the letter on 14 February. I thought, “Ah, here’s a good letter”, because it says clearly:

“The key principles that I outlined were a more proportionate approach to building safety risk”,


and

“the need to protect leaseholders”.

That is in the first paragraph. The second paragraph even starts:

“I committed to protect leaseholders”.


So I thought, “Oh, good, we’ve got there now”. But then, of course, I looked at the letter in more detail—and what is proposed in new subsection (2)(d) proposed by government Amendment 64 will have a major adverse effect on buy to let.

I remind my noble friend, who has been in housing for many years, as I have—I first got elected to the London Borough of Islington in 1968—that it was in 1993, under the Major Government, that the whole concept of buy to let was produced. That was at a time when, as all of us who were involved in housing would have known, there was a terrible situation for private tenants. They were basically exploited. We remember Rachman, De Lusignan and the others at that time. Here, it was not launched with trumpets or anything; nevertheless, it started in 1993 and it built up, because it offered good-quality housing for people to rent in the private sector. We now have a situation today, which I find really amazing, having done a bit of donkey work on this, where there are more than 2 million buy-to-let properties that are mortgaged and successful.

I will not take much of the Committee’s time, but I will just highlight that over the past 25 years, landlords have made a tangible improvement to the whole rented sector, so now we have a situation where millions of tenants today are proud of their home, although they have it on a buy-to-let basis. That is all fine and dandy, except that when you look at what is actually proposed at the moment, the net result is that, basically, buy-to-let landlords, or some of them, will not qualify for the remit of the cladding scheme that was announced in January. If they rent out no more than one flat in a block, they are okay, but if they have any more, they are in trouble. I have had strong representations, of course, from the National Residential Landlords Association, which states:

“We still fail to see why the Government is making it so difficult for buy-to-let landlords who are leaseholders to access the same level of support as all other types of leaseholders.”


The reality is, if you are a buy-to-let landlord renting out however many flats, or an owner-occupier leaseholder, you have been treated unfairly by the developers that installed dangerous cladding on blocks of flats. What Her Majesty’s Government are doing, as matters stand in Amendment 64, is introducing a very dangerous principle, basically stating that there are worthy and unworthy victims of the cladding crisis. I ask my noble friend to reflect that the Government should make it clear that any and all leaseholders should be treated the same. That is why I have tabled this amendment. I have not sought any publicity on this at all, but people have read the Bill, thankfully, and I have just brought a small sample of the huge number of emails I have received. Each is an indication of a case. The first is from a retired solicitor—so this is a perfect gentleman—who had a flat on buy to let. His wife bought one as well, and they now have two flats and are facing a problem. He says it is vital that all leaseholders are treated equally, and I do not think I can disagree with that.

Another one comes from a lady who was affected. She had a one-bedroom flat, which she bought in St Albans when her mother died, and then they bought one more, yet they are caught again. Then there is one from a lady called Katherine Wilde in Croydon. A single-parent family, two sisters, bought a flat jointly, then another flat jointly, then another flat jointly. They are caught. I could go on, although I have not brought many. It is clear. This is from a gentleman called Paul Bullock. It is clear that all these people are victims of this national scandal. As further evidence from the Grenfell inquiry comes to light, it is obvious that many parties have played a role in creating this crisis, the only innocent party being the leaseholders who purchased the flats after being guaranteed that everything was in order, only to find out that this was not true. There are moving words at the end of this email:

“Personally, I am caught up in this mess. I can’t even start to explain the toll of the past two years on my physical and mental health”.


I will not read the rest, but I will say to my noble friend that there is a problem here and I hope that he will have another look at it. I think that when he was introducing the letter of 14 February, he said that some of it had been done in a bit of a rush—so I think there ought to be an opportunity to have another look at this issue.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 59 is concerned with the first two lines of paragraph 5 of Schedule 8, which begins:

“Building safety costs may be taken into account in determining the … building safety charge payable by a relevant tenant”.


You can bet your life they will be. Leaseholders know that every other week a notice comes from the managing agents to say that the freeholder or landlord has decided that the corridor lighting needs updating, new lines need to be painted in the car park, the entry phone system needs replacing and so on, ad nauseam. This schedule gives them another excuse for possibly unnecessary, gold-plated, so-called safety improvements and contracts let to their favourite contractors. That is why my amendment seeks to add these words at the end of the sentence I have just quoted:

“only if they are below a maximum as specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State”.

It is another plea for the Government to take a permissive power so that, if it proves to be the case that service or safety charges have been jacked up, they can use a regulation to put a control on it.

These regulations may not be necessary—I hope they are not—but the power should be there just in case it is needed. If your Lordships just google “leasehold scandals”, up will pop names such as McCarthy & Stone and Peverel, now calling itself FirstPort—I can assure your Lordships that Mr Tchenguiz has not made his millions by being nice to leaseholders.

My Amendment 66A adds to the definition of “relevant defect” in new subsection (2) in Amendment 66. At the moment it says:

“‘Relevant defect’ means a defect as regards a building that … arises as a result of anything done (or not done), including anything used (or not used), in connection with relevant works, and … causes a building safety risk.”


I propose to add at the end:

“which may relate to but is not limited to … external cladding … internal walls and the materials contained inside any walls … fire doors … balconies … a lack of sprinklers, fire detection and control systems … inadequate escape routes.”

Quite simply, I believe that builders should pay for all fire safety remedial work and not just external cladding. But I also hope that common sense can prevail and the Government can lay down the law that wooden decking on a steel balcony is not a fire risk, and that potentially flammable materials sandwiched inside non-combustible inner and outer walls do not need to be removed. There are a lot of excessive suggestions on fire risk materials going round at the moment, and that needs to be stamped on.

My Amendment 86 seeks to insert a new clause to prevent managing agents charging excessive amounts for undertaking fire risk assessments or preparing applications for assistance. In particular, I suggest that the regulations may include—again I stress “may”:

“setting limits on the charges managing agents may impose for fire risk assessments … setting limits on the charges managing agents may impose for making applications to the Building Safety Fund or any other source of funding for fire risk remedial works … setting limits on the charges managing agents may impose for inviting tenders for fire risk remedial works … preventing service charges being inflated by fire risk remedial works.”

I suggest that these are all reasonable. My noble friend the Minister knows what managing agents are like. If we are not careful, this Bill will be a licence for them to print money: charging for the work of the accountable person and for drawing up the strategy, coming into all our homes to look for safety dangers, and a host of other things they will be able, quite legitimately, to charge leaseholders for. While they can do so, I suspect that the charges will be excessively high. Thus, the backstop of a regulatory power is essential.

I commend Amendment 131 from my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. He made a compelling case for a short, sharp inquiry into the charges for fire safety work which leaseholders have had to pay and which are not covered by this Bill. That is eminently sensible stuff.