Building Safety Bill

Lord Thurlow Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 2nd February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

My Lords, I declare conflicts of interest in owning two buy-to-let flats in London and as a member of the RICS for some 30 years. This Bill is long-awaited; Grenfell is nearly five years ago, and the Bill is long overdue. It sets out clear improvements in the system going forward, and I am keen to support it in principle, but I believe that it contains inadequate protections for existing leaseholders, particularly occupiers of existing older buildings, and certainly including those below the 18-metre height restriction or seven-storey levels.

Other noble Lords have talked about this, too. The principal thrust of the Bill is, of course, to protect lives, particularly those of residents. Yet looking at the Bill, I question whether it is not more building focused than people focused. Of course, one leads to the other, but the focus should, I think, be on the people, and that will manifest itself in different ways. One example is in costs of occupation, which are going to rise as a result, through additional service charge recoveries. It is wrong to expect tenants to pay 100% of the annual costs anticipated by the Bill. Another example is access to redress for leaseholders; the process sounds straight- forward but, as we have just heard, for many it will be a formidable mountain to climb, with layers of bureaucratic overlaps, probably requiring costs that many can ill afford. I hope that the Minister will confirm that this will not be the case. I was much encouraged by his remarks at the beginning of this debate.

For those living in older buildings with a heightened fire risk, particularly since Grenfell, the costs have sometimes been crippling. As we have heard, there have been huge remediation costs, soaring insurance costs, waking watch Bills and the mental health consequences for many, to say nothing of being bled dry financially, with no prospect of selling at value. We have all heard of examples. The Minister refers to protecting leaseholders, but will it be comprehensive? If this Bill sets out to protect people, leaseholders should be at the front of the queue.

I would like to touch on building ownership. Excluding social housing, existing private residential blocks may belong to City institutions or public property companies, transparent organisations. Many will belong to private property companies; some belong to private individuals—and this number is likely to be much higher than most people realise. Many are discrete operators attempting to remain below the radar and anonymous. They can camouflage ownership, probably further protected by managing agents to whom the owners themselves will sometimes be very closely linked. This will confuse and frustrate leaseholders, who will easily give up their quest for redress. I know there are provisions for building safety managers, accountable persons and regulators, but without transparent ownership, I do not understand how redress can be effectively enforced in all cases. I think there should be transparent ownership details available, identifying owners or shareholders rather than corporate vehicles often registered offshore, as the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, referred to in his speech.

Let us consider why investors own these assets. They are investments; they expect to receive rents, net of all costs. Costs are usually redirected to residents via service charges. As I mentioned, the Bill is likely to increase those annual charges to occupiers. I suggest these costs should be paid by the building owners, or at least be shared. It is not enough to assume investors may protect their investments by deflecting unexpected costs on to their residents to protect returns: their assets are, after all, being improved. I repeat: I believe the future costs set out in the Bill should be more equitably shared.

For occupiers, rights of redress are critical. I have mentioned some of the practical difficulties, but the Hackitt report stated that this Bill should reassert the rights of residents. It will not be easy nor cost-free, as items creep into service charge bills. The costs of fire safety works could be shared between freeholders and leaseholders, though there is a strong case to exempt leaseholders altogether. One normal risk of property ownership is things going wrong. Every property owner with an old house or a flat in an old building knows that it goes with the territory. Insurance is available and is the owner’s responsibility. This should not be a tenant risk; however, it usually is.

What of older buildings which fall short on safety grounds, those below 18 metres or the seven-storey threshold? I join many others in referring to this sector—in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, just now. These deserve more attention, particularly to protect leaseholders from risks and costs. I would not want to live in an old building on the sixth floor, just below the 18-metre threshold, which did not make the Bill’s cut, and be trapped up there, six storeys up. If there is to be a height limit, there is a strong case for two or three floors. What then of vulnerable people? We have heard about this too. If this Bill really wants to put the interests of residents first, these out-of-scope buildings should be included but treated differently as circumstances and assessors consider appropriate. I hope the Minister will reconsider the scope criteria.

In summary, I do not have time to add to the comments on defective materials and the laudable “polluter pays” principle, which I support. It is excellent to note that leaseholders are indeed to be protected. The more effective regulatory framework for testing and approving building products is overdue. Nor do I have time to discuss offences set out under the Bill, but I think penalties should be high. I look forward to the forthcoming government amendments, and I hope protection for leaseholders will run robustly as a central tenet throughout.