[ad_1]
A plan to protect tenants from the rising costs of fixing fire safety problems in the wake of the Grenfell Tower disaster was rejected in parliament after the government led a cross-party challenge.
Hundreds of thousands of homeowners face bills of up to £ 100,000 to repair dangerous siding, fire doors and insulation systems discovered after the June 14, 2017 fire, but ministers opposed the House of Lords proposals, Labor and some conservative advocates to protect them from costs.
Amendments to the fire safety bill were rejected in a Commons vote on Wednesday night after Labor accused the government of acting “at a snail’s pace” to address the problem. He warned that 11 million people can be affected by both immediate fire hazards and problems with insurance and certification, making many homes unsellable. The bill is the first piece of primary legislation introduced as a result of the Grenfell disaster, which occurred four years ago in June.
An amendment was also defeated to force the government to implement key recommendations from the Grenfell Tower investigation, including having homeowners tell fire departments what materials are in wall systems, inspecting fire doors annually, and elevators monthly, all of which failed during the Grenfell fire, which cost 72 lives.
Earlier this month, the government announced a £ 3.5bn extension to the fund to pay for the removal of faulty cladding in buildings over 18 meters high. But it only offered loans to repair those that were below 18 meters and nothing for other widespread defects, such as the lack of faulty firewalls and fire doors or the payment of 24-hour fire patrols and steep increases in insurance premiums.
Sarah Jones, the shadow police and fire minister, told parliament that she had heard “first hand [from leaseholders] the horrors this government is deliberately allowing ”by failing to protect them from costs.
Some have seen annual insurance costs for their blocks rise from £ 30,000 to £ 500,000, while a block with 56 tenants in Kent has already paid more than £ 500,000 for 24-hour fire patrols.
Julie Fraser, facing a bill of up to £ 40,000 for a flat she bought in Runcorn, Cheshire, for £ 75,000, said: ‘It’s appalling. I don’t have another £ 40,000 to spend on the building. It might as well have to go bankrupt. “
Abigail Tubis, who is facing a £ 80,000 bill to fix her property, said: “I have struggled for the past 18 months to accept this scandal. My days are full of despair, regret and anxiety … I cannot have a family with the idea of bankruptcy on my head.
Rituparna Saha, a high-rise building tenant with multiple fire safety issues and co-founder of the UK Cladding Action Group, said: “No impartial person believes it is right to force victims and taxpayers to pay billions of pounds for rescue the construction industry, siding manufacturers, developers, building controllers and regulators who caused this crisis. “
A Home Office minister, Kit Malthouse, said the amendments tabled in the House of Lords and by secondary MPs were “well intentioned” but were not detailed enough and could even delay repairs. He said the government plans to address the question of who should pay in the next building security bill.
“It is unacceptable that tenants have to worry about fixing historical security defects in their buildings,” he said.
Other Conservative MPs warned that trying to put the cost on free owners would simply see them walk away from their property.
Stephen McPartland, the Conservative MP from Stevenage, who sponsored an amendment to protect tenants that was backed by more than 30 Conservative supporters, said: “We never asked the government to pay the full costs of the remediation, we never asked the taxpayer to rescue people. We just want the taxpayer to provide a safety net to the tenants to ensure that fire safety works are done. “
It is estimated that around 274,000 homes have been fitted with hazardous coatings, according to the Association of Housing Management Agents, affecting more than 650,000 people. That number is likely to run into the millions when considering those living in lower structures where problems have also arisen.
