| Dangerous cladding on high rises 12:01 - Jan 23 with 801 views | giant_stow |
Just reading this: https://www.theguardian.com/money/2021/jan/23/cladding-scandal-flat-owners-bills and wondering why the house builders aren’t on the hook for the cost of remedial work?
If fire breaks and alarms are missing and cladding is dangerous, surely it should be done to the company that built these building to fix it?
Yet instead of that, leaseholders get the privilege of paying one for the shoddy flad and then again to fix it — how’s that fair?
And isn’t it in the hosuebuilder’s interest to put this all right too? I mean who’s buy a new build in a any kind of block now? You’d have to mad to innit?
|  |
| |  |
| Dangerous cladding on high rises on 12:02 - Jan 23 with 791 views | BlueBadger |
Yes, but the LABOUR PARTY. |  |
| |
| Dangerous cladding on high rises on 12:18 - Jan 23 with 752 views | giant_stow |
| Dangerous cladding on high rises on 12:02 - Jan 23 by BlueBadger |
Yes, but the LABOUR PARTY. |
But how's this evening a political issue and not a legal one? In most other products / services, if you don;t deliver a decent product, there's legal comeback for the punter. Why not with bludy houses?! | |
| |
| Dangerous cladding on high rises on 12:22 - Jan 23 with 745 views | monytowbray |
| Dangerous cladding on high rises on 12:18 - Jan 23 by giant_stow |
But how's this evening a political issue and not a legal one? In most other products / services, if you don;t deliver a decent product, there's legal comeback for the punter. Why not with bludy houses?! |
Corporate crime against society is always political. That’s why lobbying exists. |  |
| |
| Dangerous cladding on high rises on 12:31 - Jan 23 with 731 views | ronnyd |
A lot of this cladding has been put on older high rise housing just to tart it up to look more aesthetically pleasing. You ca't expect the original developers to shoulder that cost. Probably, most of them are now no longer trading or have been swallowed up by larger companies over the years. The ones responsible are the councils or management companies who decided to have the cladding fitted or to add it to the newer builds on construction. To me, they should be the ones targeted for this. Also, yes, it is a disgrace that this issue is still not addressed yet. |  | | |
| Dangerous cladding on high rises on 12:37 - Jan 23 with 722 views | giant_stow |
| Dangerous cladding on high rises on 12:31 - Jan 23 by ronnyd |
A lot of this cladding has been put on older high rise housing just to tart it up to look more aesthetically pleasing. You ca't expect the original developers to shoulder that cost. Probably, most of them are now no longer trading or have been swallowed up by larger companies over the years. The ones responsible are the councils or management companies who decided to have the cladding fitted or to add it to the newer builds on construction. To me, they should be the ones targeted for this. Also, yes, it is a disgrace that this issue is still not addressed yet. |
If it was a tart-up job, then that job has to be done to safetly specs surely? If those specs are ignored, then why shouldn't that company pay? | |
| |
| Dangerous cladding on high rises on 12:45 - Jan 23 with 712 views | ronnyd |
| Dangerous cladding on high rises on 12:37 - Jan 23 by giant_stow |
If it was a tart-up job, then that job has to be done to safetly specs surely? If those specs are ignored, then why shouldn't that company pay? |
Exactly, go after the authority who procured the cladding. You can't blame a developer/constructor for additions that were added, sometimes decades after the original block was completed. | | | |
| Dangerous cladding on high rises on 13:18 - Jan 23 with 663 views | lowhouseblue |
| Dangerous cladding on high rises on 12:37 - Jan 23 by giant_stow |
If it was a tart-up job, then that job has to be done to safetly specs surely? If those specs are ignored, then why shouldn't that company pay? |
it's not usually a tart up job. on a new build it is part of the construction method - the load bearing structure is the frame, the walls are light weight insulation materials and the cladding provides the weather protection and further insulation. in retrofits it is mainly used as a way of bringing up the environmental performance of a building which was built badly and at a time when no one cared about environmental performance. the cladding then provides insulation, breathability and weather protection. it's very green - the alternative would probably be demolition. if you are adding that layer it needs to look ok but the look is rarely the prime reason for doing it.
the issue here is a huge regulatory failure on the part of building control - which seems to involve a mix of government, architects, builders and material suppliers all contributing over decades to this failure. |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Dangerous cladding on high rises on 14:15 - Jan 23 with 616 views | andytown |
| Dangerous cladding on high rises on 13:18 - Jan 23 by lowhouseblue |
it's not usually a tart up job. on a new build it is part of the construction method - the load bearing structure is the frame, the walls are light weight insulation materials and the cladding provides the weather protection and further insulation. in retrofits it is mainly used as a way of bringing up the environmental performance of a building which was built badly and at a time when no one cared about environmental performance. the cladding then provides insulation, breathability and weather protection. it's very green - the alternative would probably be demolition. if you are adding that layer it needs to look ok but the look is rarely the prime reason for doing it.
the issue here is a huge regulatory failure on the part of building control - which seems to involve a mix of government, architects, builders and material suppliers all contributing over decades to this failure. |
As far as I’m aware the regs were followed when some of these blocks were built, so who set the regs...? | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Dangerous cladding on high rises on 14:37 - Jan 23 with 595 views | jeera |
I'm not understanding how any of this is on the leaseholders either.
If the building is owned by another party then you'd think, surely, as it's thier building and all that.
However, it will fall under some clause or other that will have been written in at the time and signed for. Although just because something is in writing shouldn't always automatically make it a legal arrangement. |  |
| |
| Dangerous cladding on high rises on 19:21 - Jan 23 with 549 views | lowhouseblue |
| Dangerous cladding on high rises on 14:15 - Jan 23 by andytown |
As far as I’m aware the regs were followed when some of these blocks were built, so who set the regs...? |
parliament. the issue is how are they interpreted and enforced. why was an unsafe building system accepted as compliant with the regs. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Dangerous cladding on high rises on 19:23 - Jan 23 with 540 views | GeoffSentence |
It should certainly be the responsibility of either the builder or freeholder in my view. The poor old leaseholders had no responsibility for putting up this stuff and now they are being ruined by those companies' failures. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
