Ahead of an appearance before a Parliamentary Select Committee on Monday NRLA Chief Executive Ben Beadle explains why it is vital landlords are given assurances they will not be ignored when it comes to support to tackle dangerous cladding.
Individual landlord leaseholders should be treated in exactly the same way as owner-occupiers when it comes to support to remove dangerous cladding.
When announcing plans to force developers to pay for remedial action to tackle dangerous cladding on buildings between 11 and 18 metres high, Housing Secretary Michael Gove has rightly argued that leaseholders should not be expected to foot the bill.
However while he was clear in his statement that no leaseholder ‘living in their own flat’ will have to pay to fix unsafe cladding, Ministers have since admitted that, while those subletting properties as a result of being unable to sell their flats will be included in the scheme, that the Government has yet to make a decision about buy-to-let landlords.
This is extremely disappointing.
The tenure of the flat should have no impact on how the Government approaches the issue. It is nonsensical.
If the Housing Secretary believes that developers are responsible for the costs then surely it is irrelevant whether the person living there is an owner-occupier or a tenant?
The Government is, quite simply, treating some leaseholders like second-class citizens.
Negotiating any difference in approach between tenures also has the potential to cause serious delays to the vital remedial works that need to be carried out.
Earlier this month I wrote to Michael Gove, outlining the association’s concerns on the issue and on Monday I will be addressing the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Select Committee as part of its inquiry into building safety.
There I will make the case that landlord leaseholders and owner occupiers are both facing the same set of problems, and both must be treated equally and given the same level of financial support.
The vast majority of landlords are individuals, they not property tycoons or fat cats with vast portfolios and disposable incomes. Indeed 70% are basic rate taxpayers.
I will also point to the Government’s own figures which 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
Practical implications
Of course, it is not just a question of what is ‘fair’; there could also be practical implications if the Government insists on treating landlords differently.
In all 45% of landlords have a flat or apartment to let as part of their portfolio, and the vast majority of these apartments will be in mixed use buildings, made up of both homes for rent and those which are owner occupied.
If the Government exempts landlords from this package of financial support it could significantly slow down or stall the very repair works the Government is committed to seeing happen as decisions are taken about who would and would not qualify for support
The announcement that developers will need to foot the bill for the remedial works to these properties is a huge step forward after years of debate on the cladding issue.
What we want now is an assurance that this will be a step forward for all.
- Ben will be giving evidence at 5pm on Monday. You can access a live stream of the session here: https://committees.parliament.uk/event/6982/formal-meeting-oral-evidence-session/