CLADDING: Why are landlords being singled out?
The cladding crisis has had a devastating impact on leaseholders across the country, with property values plummeting and bills for waking watches and other safety measures rocketing.
When, after years of debate, the Government announced leaseholders would not have to pay for remediation work on properties between 11m-18m high there was a collective sigh of relief.
This relief, however, was short-lived as the Government announced developers would be responsible for funding works for owner-occupiers only, with leaseholder landlords left out in the cold.
Following extensive lobbying by the NRLA, including meetings with ministers at the very highest level, these rules were changed, with landlords owning up to two rentals in addition to their own home now proposed to benefit from the funding.
But while the change is welcome it still leaves many landlords high and dry, facing bills of tens of thousands of pounds for remediation works through no fault of their own.
These landlords have purchased properties in the same way as those owning and living in their flats, with no more involvement in development decisions. Yet for some arbitrary reason they are being denied the help and support they need and deserve.
Fallacy
Housing Secretary Michael Gove said he had excluded landlords from the plans as he did not want to support those who already had “significant means” to pay for remedial action themselves.
However, this idea that landlords are somehow ‘fat cats’ by the very nature of them owning rental properties is a fallacy.
We know the vast majority of landlords are individuals and not property tycoons with vast portfolios and disposable income – with 70% basic rate taxpayers.
Indeed, the Government’s own figures show:
- 94% of private landlords rent property out as an individual
- 45% of private landlords rent out just one property
- 44% of private landlords became one to contribute to a pension
Worthy or unworthy of help?
The idea the Government seems to be encouraging, that there are ‘worthy’ and ‘unworthy’ leaseholders is dangerous and it is unfair.
Buy-to-let landlords are no more to blame than other leaseholders for historic building safety defects and landing them with potentially unaffordable bills will only slow down or prevent works to make buildings safe.
The existing policy is unfair, and while we are glad to see the Government has made some changes in response to our campaigning, we continue to call for all landlords to be included.
The exclusion of some leaseholders causes unnecessary complications, to the detriment of all property owners.
I have raised questions about cladding and the decision to exclude landlords with the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Select Committee and in private meetings with housing minister Eddie Hughes, shadow housing minister Matthew Pennycook and Lord Greenhalgh, minister of state for building safety and fire in the hope we can bring about further change.
The Government announcement that developers would foot the bill for remedial works was a huge step forward after years of debate, however what we need now are assurances that this will be a step forward for all.
Ben Beadle is Chief Exective of the NRLA.
©1999 – Present | Parkmatic Publications Ltd. All rights reserved | LandlordZONE® – CLADDING: Why are landlords being singled out? | LandlordZONE.
View Full Article: CLADDING: Why are landlords being singled out?
Post comment
Categories
- Landlords (19)
- Real Estate (9)
- Renewables & Green Issues (1)
- Rental Property Investment (1)
- Tenants (21)
- Uncategorized (11,916)
Archives
- December 2024 (43)
- November 2024 (64)
- October 2024 (82)
- September 2024 (69)
- August 2024 (55)
- July 2024 (64)
- June 2024 (54)
- May 2024 (73)
- April 2024 (59)
- March 2024 (49)
- February 2024 (57)
- January 2024 (58)
- December 2023 (56)
- November 2023 (59)
- October 2023 (67)
- September 2023 (136)
- August 2023 (131)
- July 2023 (129)
- June 2023 (128)
- May 2023 (140)
- April 2023 (121)
- March 2023 (168)
- February 2023 (155)
- January 2023 (152)
- December 2022 (136)
- November 2022 (158)
- October 2022 (146)
- September 2022 (148)
- August 2022 (169)
- July 2022 (124)
- June 2022 (124)
- May 2022 (130)
- April 2022 (116)
- March 2022 (155)
- February 2022 (124)
- January 2022 (120)
- December 2021 (117)
- November 2021 (139)
- October 2021 (130)
- September 2021 (138)
- August 2021 (110)
- July 2021 (110)
- June 2021 (60)
- May 2021 (127)
- April 2021 (122)
- March 2021 (156)
- February 2021 (154)
- January 2021 (133)
- December 2020 (126)
- November 2020 (159)
- October 2020 (169)
- September 2020 (181)
- August 2020 (147)
- July 2020 (172)
- June 2020 (158)
- May 2020 (177)
- April 2020 (188)
- March 2020 (234)
- February 2020 (212)
- January 2020 (164)
- December 2019 (107)
- November 2019 (131)
- October 2019 (145)
- September 2019 (123)
- August 2019 (112)
- July 2019 (93)
- June 2019 (82)
- May 2019 (94)
- April 2019 (88)
- March 2019 (78)
- February 2019 (77)
- January 2019 (71)
- December 2018 (37)
- November 2018 (85)
- October 2018 (108)
- September 2018 (110)
- August 2018 (135)
- July 2018 (140)
- June 2018 (118)
- May 2018 (113)
- April 2018 (64)
- March 2018 (96)
- February 2018 (82)
- January 2018 (92)
- December 2017 (62)
- November 2017 (100)
- October 2017 (105)
- September 2017 (97)
- August 2017 (101)
- July 2017 (104)
- June 2017 (155)
- May 2017 (135)
- April 2017 (113)
- March 2017 (138)
- February 2017 (150)
- January 2017 (127)
- December 2016 (90)
- November 2016 (135)
- October 2016 (149)
- September 2016 (135)
- August 2016 (48)
- July 2016 (52)
- June 2016 (54)
- May 2016 (52)
- April 2016 (24)
- October 2014 (8)
- April 2012 (2)
- December 2011 (2)
- November 2011 (10)
- October 2011 (9)
- September 2011 (9)
- August 2011 (3)
Calendar
Recent Posts
- Landlords’ Rights Bill: Let’s tell the government what we want
- 2025 will be crucial for leasehold reform as secondary legislation takes shape
- Reeves inflationary budget puts mockers on Bank Base Rate reduction
- How to Avoid SDLT Hikes In 2025
- Shelter Scotland slams council for stripping homeless households of ‘human rights’