Part of the reason for this is to ensure funding is not diverted from other essential maintenance and repair budgets. The question is whether this is anywhere near enough? As 266 blocks failed BRE tests, the remedial costs are likely to be very substantial and will probably exceed £1billion.
Our view is that it could be sufficient provided that contractors make appropriate contributions where they have breached legal duties. We were recently approached by a registered provider of social housing for advice on cladding issues. A national contractor had installed cladding to two of their high rise blocks through a sub-contractor. The cladding had failed the tests and subsequently needed to be removed. So, the cladding was stripped off, our clients waited and waited for the contractor who was responsible for installing it to come up with a remedial solution. The problems were compounded as additional defects came to light on removal. As the likely costs increased, the contractor backtracked and delayed in organising remedial works. After a period of some 5 months, we advised that our clients should appoint experts to advise on a remedial solution and then get the remedial works done by an alternative contractor. We explained that it is not a legal requirement for remedial works to be carried out by the original contractor after the expiry of the rectification period.
We informed the original contractor and their lawyers of the approach that would be taken, they were not happy! We suspect that they did not want to commit until they could be sure of recovery from their subcontractors. Our clients remained firm about their intention to have the works done by an alternative contractor and as a consequence, negotiations commenced. A substantial contribution was agreed by the original contractor to the costs of removal and replacement without the need for legal proceedings. No doubt, the contractor is taking steps to recover these sums from their sub-contractors.
Our top tips for addressing cladding issues are:
If you have any questions or queries relating to this article, please get in touch with Andrew Lancaster.
Under most construction contracts, the contractor takes on the ground conditions risk. However, a recent case has demonstrated that the risk can fall on the employer.
The UK Government has been consulting on how it should promote social value in its procurements. Here is our response that we submitted to the consultation...
The Tenant Fees Act 2019 came into force on 1 June 2019.
A recent case in the Court of Appeal will no doubt bring a sigh of relief for employers, but a corresponding sigh of disappointment may be uttered for equality and gender balance in the workplace.
This briefing assists response to the consultation paper by outlining the consultation questions, providing some background information and prompting some thoughts and potential answers.
A report published on 29 May by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has found that since 2009-10, local government spending on services has fallen on average by 21% in real terms.
A long-awaited decision of the Court of Appeal has clarified that a lower standard of proof should apply than previously thought before an Inquest can return a conclusion of suicide.
New regulations come into force on 1 June 2019, amending the Section 21 (s21) prescribed form template for use with assured shorthold tenancies.
In a challenging economic climate with continuing budget cuts and increasing expectations of staff, sickness absence remains an ongoing problem that is important to address.
Social housing providers will routinely have a number of construction projects underway at any one time. It is essential for client teams to understand and avoid key contract management pitfalls.
To receive invitations to our events, as well as information and articles on legal issues and sector developments that are of interest to you, please sign up to Newsroom.