By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies to enhance your experience.
Graham Awards


Government told: Don’t penalise landlords over cladding

The campaign to ensure that landlords are included in the government’s measures to alleviate the problem of dangerous cladding is gathering momentum. 

Last week the National Residential Landlords Association wrote to Housing Secretary Michael Gove to express its concern that landlords were apparently excluded from a £4 billion fund which was launched and aimed at owner occupiers in buildings between 11 to 18 metres which may have dangerous cladding. 

Landlords were excluded from the measure.


Now Propertymark has thrown its weight behind the call for landlords to be included, with policy and campaigns manager Timothy Douglas saying: “The principle that leaseholders must not be expected to pay to fix a cladding crisis that they did not cause lies at the heart of the UK government’s plans to address the issue, but there is no logical basis on which buy-to-let landlords should be excluded from this.

“Buy-to-let landlords are no more to blame and deserve justice just as much as any other leaseholder to ensure they are not penalised for simply being landlords.

“The ball has been put firmly and very publicly in the court of those responsible, but there are still more details that need to be clarified to restore full confidence in this area of the market.

“Propertymark welcomes efforts by the UK government to bring an end to this issue that has left many people unable to re-mortgage, sell or rent out these homes, so it’s vital that private rented sector landlords are included in the support.”


Gove says he wants property developers to pay the estimated £4 billion cost through increased taxes or legal action, as part of a "polluter pays" approach.

Last year Chancellor Rishi Sunak announced that a new Residential Development Tax would be levied to fund remedial work on dangerous cladding on higher rise blocks.

The levy will be four per cent and would apply to those developers making in excess of £25m profit.  Some 31 residential developers reported profits of that scale in 2019. 

Want to comment on this story? If so...if any post is considered to victimise, harass, degrade or intimidate an individual or group of individuals on any basis, then the post may be deleted and the individual immediately banned from posting in future.

  • icon

    If LL's are NOT included, then this alone will spell out in big bold letters how this conservative govt think of us.......... with total distain.

    Theodor Cable

    Let them continue the distain.
    There will come a time when the Govt. will have to beg private LLs to supply accommodation.
    Then the rents will be easy to let out at much better rates.
    More for us for all the pain the Govt. is causing us now.


    Don't make the mistake of thinking this is just the Tories. It's all politicians in all parties.

  • Suzy OShea

    Does anyone think that figure of £4 billion will go anywhere near paying to fix these problems?

    It's pie in the sky! A sop to the ignorant members of the public who are impressed by what seems to be big sums of money.

    Good luck to Landlords wanting an ever shrinking piece of this miniscule pie.

    The only parties responsible for this are the Conservatives who were in power and loosened buildings regulations to enable. Developers to incur lower costs when building blocks of flats.

    Those costs saved went straight to their bank accounts.


    I don't think I've ever seen a comment with so much ignorance in it. It's literally every line!


    So you think £4 billion is plenty to fix all these fire risks, developers didn't cut corners and compromise fire safety and the Tories didn't cooperate with their big developer donors?

  • Theodor Cable

    Why should I worry about the level of rental housing?
    For the last 20 years no Govt. has ever reached the housing pool targets for new properties. Hence the number of social housing is in effect decreasing.

    And that seems to me to be good for private Landlords, as the alternative competition is proportionally smaller and getting smaller.


    It's only good if you have profitable access to the market. Trust me, they are working on making sure that isn't the case. Just as they have priced everyone other than a handful of giants out of property development, they are planning to do the same in the private rental sector. It's go big, or go home.

  • George Dawes

    My brothers friend who’s a property developer reckons he’s going to go bankrupt over this cladding charade , we’re talking millions here . The whole thing is an utter disgrace


    I absolutely agree. Developers look to the authorities and organisations who make the legislation for guidance in how to jump through their hoops and play by the rules that they set. Now it turns out the game was flawed all along they are being hung out to dry. Totally disgusting, but it's good PR, so those in charge don't care.

    • AQ
    • 21 January 2022 19:56 PM

    How is he going bankrupt?

  • icon

    Although the headline news in regards the Cladding debacle is the future lump sum demand in the high 5/6 figure region, what i feel is causing the daily and monthly stress is the very high increases in service charge, insurance and a waking watch, i would imagine that trying to find these figures every single month must be soul destroying, and then they may get an invoice for 100k plus at the end of it........ a total buck passing excercise by the govt and a dereliction of their duty to protect the public. It all started when the fire safety sign off went from the fire service to the local authority..... the start of the dumbing down and back handers.


    Some how Simon it all stinks doesn't it. but are we surprised ? Governments and councils of all colors left or right stink, nothing new there then.

  • icon

    They've got fire safety in the UK all wrong. The emphasis is on passive fire protection i.e. fire doors protected corridors etc. No one has ever died in a fully fire sprinklered property and if the over-the-top regulations imposed for the certification of fire sprinklers was reduced it would be far far cheaper to fit fire sprinklers than passive fire protection. What they demand in the way of fire protection is not second rate it does not even become close it is almost worse than useless. Fire doors in HMOs are propped open, door closes removed fire alarms interfered with . Not only would there be a saving in life by fitting fire sprinklers but a massive reduction in property damage.

    The question you need to ask is why have those in powers not required fire sprinklers to be fitted and the answer is it's against the interests of the massive billion pound passive fire protection industry and will reduce the demand for the fire service. Those in the know are not going to vote like turkeys for Christmas.
    Jim Haliburton
    The HMO daddy


Please login to comment

MovePal MovePal MovePal
sign up