The government has hit back at claims from the National Residential Landlords Association that buy to let landlords are being left out of considerations about covering the costs of remediation work to be done on blocks with cladding.
Last month Housing Secretary Michael Gove announced plans to force developers to pay for remedial action to tackle dangerous cladding on buildings between 11 and 18 metres high.
In the same announcement he argued that leaseholders should not be expected to foot the bill. However, ministers have yet to decide if buy to let landlords will be included within the scheme.
The NRLA is warning that the government is not treating all leaseholders equally and that this risks delaying remedial work on dangerous cladding as the government seeks to understand who may be an accidental or BTL landlord.
However, a spokesperson the Department of Levelling Up, Housing and Communities says: “We are bringing this scandal to an end – protecting leaseholders and making industry pay.
“It is not right that innocent leaseholders - including those who have moved out and now sub-let their properties - should pay to remove dangerous cladding for which they were not responsible.
“We will explore whether this support should extend to other leaseholders, such as buy to let landlords.”
Want to comment on this story? Our focus is on providing a platform for you to share your insights and views and we welcome contributions.
If any post is considered to victimise, harass, degrade or intimidate an individual or group of individuals, then the post may be deleted and the individual immediately banned from posting in future.
Please help us by reporting comments you consider to be unduly offensive so we can review and take action if necessary. Thank you.
/MichaelGove-400x310.jpg)
.jpg)
%20(002).png)
.png)
Join the conversation
Jump to latest comment and add your reply
Just how low can the govt's opinion of LL's go !!! The majority of the BTL landlords are only LL's because the previous Labour govt decimated the private pension system and they need some method of obtaining a decent retirement, they did not wish to be a burden on the state or claim benefits, and in doing so they may be discriminated against........ well done UK Govt PLC.
They should have simply let the tax payer support them.
That's the exact reason that I got into BTL all those yrs ago, self employed, didn't like, trust, or believe the flash Harrys selling private pensions.
Well no building is going to get their cladding replaced without it, as only when a block manager/contractor has the financial commitment from 100% of leaseholders will any work commence. Landlords are best advised to refuse that to get governments attention.
And thats the point, its about leaseholders, thats the language that has always been used in this debate. Leaseholders who are the victims of shoddy standards in building control, with manufacturers and developers. I have never seen any reference to that group further sub divided into whether those leaseholders were in residence or otherwise. Does that make a difference to the value of any claim for substandard construction standards?
Albeit, now this debate has opened, I see above the DLU are now calling them "leaseholders" and "other leasholders"???? Would they mind defining the difference, as I would love to hear it, and where I can then find it as a recognised definition in the law of property, Ive never heard of the term?
Please login to comment