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


Cladding Scandal: MPs call on government to reverse anti-landlord position

A cross-party group of MPs has opposed government plans to make many buy to let landlords pay for the replacement of dangerous cladding.

Ministers have proposed that landlords renting out more than one leasehold property will be excluded from its commitment that no leaseholder should pay for removing unsafe cladding following the Grenfell Tower tragedy.

Following evidence provided by the National Residential Landlords Association, the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Select Committee has said in its report on building safety published today that: “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.”


In its evidence to the committee the NRLA argued that it was completely unfair that individual landlords should be the only leaseholders not to be covered by the government’s plans to finance the removal of dangerous cladding.



The committee noted that it had heard from landlords “who find themselves outside of the scope of the protections, who invested in properties to support their children, to provide income after being made redundant, to help pay for the costs of caring for relatives, or to provide for their retirement”. All of these, it said, are “now facing bills they cannot afford.”

This is supported by a reference in the report to the story of one landlord who had used compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority to invest in flats after the murder of their husband in the July 7 2007 atrocity. They told the committee that they now face “vast bills”.

NRLA chief executive Ben Beadle comments: “We are delighted that the committee agrees with us. 

The government’s decision to exclude buy to let landlords renting more than one property from its scheme is unfair and unacceptable. As the committee rightly notes landlords are no more to blame than other leaseholders for historic building safety defects.

“Ministers now need to stop dragging their feet on this issue, accept the committee’s conclusions and end its unjust and inexcusable policy.”

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.

  • icon

    A cross party committee is telling a Tory government not to penalize landlords!

    Very confusing. I thought the Tories were supposed to support businesses.


    A true Conservative government would support business, what we have at present is a labour government claiming to be Conservative

  • icon

    Agree with the above, this is like no Conservative Government I have ever seen, it’s akin to Blair’s “ Labour “ Government of the 90”s :)

  • Kerry Pace

    I am devastated. So-Gove obviously thinks 'some leaseholders are more innocent than others' (Animal Farm). It you have been wronged-as we have-that is the only criteria you need to meet. We are non qualifying leaseholders and we may get a bill of £50,000-£100,000 plus-who knows? Where do we get that kind of money? I have too many properties in part because I can't sell 2 of them- one directly because of cladding-the other as a consequence of it! Last year my gross income was £29,000-why does he think we are all wealthy? This is spiteful. What an absolute mess. Gove is a foul man. How can it be fair that we have the smallest and cheapest flat in the block-we will be the only people out of 10 flats paying for the cladding to be removed from the penthouses at the top!? I am beyond furious.


Please login to comment

MovePal MovePal MovePal
sign up