Flat owner hit with £65,000 fire safety bill as block too short for funding

UK apartment owners are facing huge fire safety remediation costs because the buildings they live in are not tall enough to qualify for the special funds announced by the government after the Grenfell Tower fire. Many owners of low-rise buildings are therefore burdened with heavy financial burdens, and their lives are seriously affected.

Following the Grenfell Tower fire in 2017, which killed 72 people, the previous government enacted the Building Safety Act. However, the scope of the Act does not include buildings below 11 meters (36 feet) or less than five stories. Some lawyers believe that the new law is "too hasty," while the government says that the Act has covered most leaseholders and will continue to review relevant legislation.

Paramedic Tom De Londre faces bankruptcy after receiving a bill of up to £65,000 because his apartment is located in a three-story building. He told the BBC: "I had to take a month off work due to stress. I'm worried about the cladding every day." According to the "End Our Cladding Scandal" campaign group, there are 1.3 million leasehold apartments in low-rise buildings below 11 meters in England.

Tom bought the apartment in Luton in 2018 with savings from his military service. He was "very shocked" when he received the £65,000 bill. The bill issued by the landlord is his legal share of the building's fire prevention renovation costs. "Honestly, I thought it was a typo," Tom said. He later learned that because of the building's height, he was a "non-qualifying leaseholder" and needed to bear the cost of fire safety remediation.

Tom explained: "The government said that for buildings below 11 meters, the risk can be reduced by other means (such as using fire alarms and sprinkler systems), but this is not the case in my case. I have had two fire assessments, both of which showed that the cladding is dangerous and needs to be removed, and the price (they also said that the price of smaller buildings would be lower) is ridiculously high. I can't afford it." After complaining to the building owner, Tom expects the bill to be reduced, but it is not clear by how much.

Tom originally planned to sell the apartment and buy a family home, but now he cannot. "This is ruining my life, I'm facing bankruptcy," he said. The Department for Housing told the BBC that owners of buildings below 11 meters should not pass on the cost of repairing historical safety defects to leaseholders. But when the developer no longer exists or the landlord cannot afford the repair costs, the law does not prevent people like Tom from being charged unlimited amounts.

Leasehold expert Liz Ramsden told the BBC that she believes the Building Safety Act was drafted too hastily. "The original intention was not to let any leaseholders pay the fees, but in fact we found that many leaseholders had to pay huge sums of money. Due to insufficient consultation, there are loopholes in the legislation, and people are suffering as a result."

Even in buildings taller than 11 meters, the Act has failed to protect many leaseholders. Homeowners with Islamic mortgages or three or more properties are also unable to enjoy full protection. Martin Bartie, who has an Islamic mortgage, only discovered this when he was selling his one-bedroom apartment. He said his lawyer explained that the structure of Islamic home purchase plans (to comply with Islamic law that does not allow interest payments) meant he was not covered by the Act.

"It feels really unfair. I feel like I'm being discriminated against," he said. "Just because I have an Islamic home purchase plan, I'm considered a non-qualifying leaseholder, which is really frustrating. It's really frustrating and very disappointing." The government told the BBC that Islamic interest-free loans secured on property are very rare. But Martin said he couldn't sell his apartment because mortgage providers wouldn't offer loans on it and lawyers wouldn't advise on non-qualifying leases.

Susie Spearing and her husband Colin invested in four rental properties to fund their retirement, including two "heavily mortgaged" apartments in Salford. These two apartments are located in a building where much of the cladding has been found to be unsafe. The government will fund the removal work, but because the couple owns more than three properties, they are also non-qualifying leaseholders and will have to pay to make the tower fire safe.

"Everything we planned for is going to disappear," Susie said. "How are we going to raise the money needed? We may have to pay £100,000 for our two apartments." According to the "End Our Cladding Scandal" organization, there are 385,000 apartments in England owned by non-qualifying leaseholders like Susie and Colin. The couple has gone back to work to save money, "but there's no way we can pay what we have to pay," she added. "Our lives are on hold. We don't know when it will end."

Ramsden, the lawyer, said: "Due to the problems with the Act, lease transactions have fallen by 40%. There is an urgent need to review it so that we can make it work better for everyone." A government spokesperson told the BBC that it would consider amending the Building Safety Act and review how to provide greater cost protection.