<\/div>\n\n\n\n
To really show they\u2019re not messing about, the new bill has brought in some stringent fines and sanctions<\/span><\/span><\/strong> to make sure people stick to the rules. Some of which include;<\/p>\n\n\n\n- \n
\n- \n
\n- \n
Directors or managers of companies responsible for building safety will be personally liable for failings with new criminal offences for the worst offenders, and up to 2 years in prison.<\/strong><\/span><\/h6>\n<\/li>\n- \n
Not registering buildings with the Building Safety Regulator or not applying for a building assessment certificate could result in criminal action.<\/strong><\/span><\/h6>\n<\/li>\n- \n
The Building Safety Regulator can investigate areas of concern and issue compliance notices. Failure to address the problems will also be a criminal offence.<\/strong><\/span><\/h6>\n<\/li>\n- \n
Serious failings may mean a building given to a new manager appointed by the Regulator in the interests of safety.<\/strong><\/span><\/h6>\n<\/li>\n- \n
Should a developer begin to build without gaining regulatory approval, this could also lead to prosecution.<\/strong><\/span><\/h6>\n<\/li>\n- \n
Attempts to exploit or frustrate the system (for example providing false information) could also result in criminal punishment.<\/strong><\/span><\/h6>\n<\/li>\n- \n
The regulator may investigate building control bodies and de-register private approvers that daily to meet standards.<\/strong><\/span><\/h6>\n<\/li>\n- \n
They can also recommend the Government take over a failing council building control department.<\/strong><\/span><\/h6>\n<\/li>\n- \n
Failure to adhere to the aforementioned Fire Safety Order can result in considerable fines.<\/strong><\/span><\/h6>\n<\/li>\n- \n
Furthermore, the National Regulator of Construction Products will have the power to remove products from the market if they are deemed a safety risk, and may prosecute those who fail to comply (if they are UK based). <\/strong><\/span><\/h6>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
The last point is particularly poignant given the revelations about a defective insulation board on Grenfell Tower which emerged at the public inquiry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n
6. Good News for Leaseholders!<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
In recent months the Government has come under criticism for failing to take a committed stance on protecting leaseholders from paying to fix issues that are not of their making. At present, the law means leaseholders contribute towards building works including safety work such as removing dangerous cladding, through the payment of service charges.
The draft version of the Building Safety Bill proposed the idea of a flat rate \u2018building safety charge\u2019<\/strong> separate from service charges. The argument from many Ministers being it would add transparency to the system.
Whereas this sounded good, there was criticism over the inclusion of a clause allowing building owners to backdate costs for defects that may have occurred before residents moved in. So naturally, the Housing, Communities and Local Government Select Committee recommended this clause be axed.
The Government accepted this and the bill now only allows for this building safety charge to cover ongoing costs of the new regulatory regime (the Building Safety Bill\/Building Regulator period onwards). \u00a316 is the estimated cost of this new building safety charge once it\u2019s fully incorporated, although the initial 2 year transition period will be more costly. This new charge is expected to come into place between Spring and Winter 2023.<\/p>\n\n\n\nIt\u2019s worth mentioning that this won\u2019t completely <\/em>protect leaseholders, but it puts the ball in their court a bit more. A legislation explainer said the bill;<\/p>\n\n\n\n\u201cdoes not make leaseholders liable for the costs of undertaking capital works, for example, removing unsafe cladding. However, where existing leases allow for these remediation costs to be passed on, the Building Safety Bill will bring forward measures to protect leaseholders, by placing additional duties on the building owner to explore alternative cost recovery routes before passing costs to leaseholders.\u201d<\/em>\n<\/pre>\n\n\n\nSo what does this mean in plain English? Basically, the building owner will have more responsibility to try everything in their powers to fix the problem without charging the leaseholder. Only once they can prove they\u2019ve tried everything (without success) can they ask leaseholders for any money. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
And while we\u2019re here, it\u2019s worth remembering that this bill is much more focused on the construction, inspection and maintenance of new high-rises, and not so much on fixing safety issues in current buildings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n
7. Legal Liability Lengthened<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
Another big change is an amendment to the Defective Premises act 1972<\/strong> which states that if a dwelling is unfit for habitation, a leaseholder can make a legal claim within 6 years after construction. This proved tricky in the past however as some leaseholders looking to make a claim against the original developer found their building was developed long before the 6 year period.
The amendment changes this timeframe from 6 to 15 years<\/strong> and is a big step that will now cover refurbishments too, having only covered construction before. This is great when you think about the amount of refurbishment and remediation that will be needed to fix the numerous buildings with fire safety issues at present. <\/p>\n\n\n\nIt also increases accountability for developers when they know they will be liable for more than twice as long. This will come into force 2 months after the bill gets passed. So going off that being in about 12 months would make it sometime in 2022, making the new cut-off point next year 2007, then 2008 and so on.
There has been scepticism as to how effective this will actually be, as plenty of blocks were built long before the new 15-year period. Furthermore, there\u2019s the question of whether leaseholders of buildings built within the 15-year period will have the resources or ability to launch a timely and costly legal claim against a large developer. A further obstacle is that these buildings may well have been built to the standards of the time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Another big change was the proposal to repeal Section 38 of the Building Safety Act<\/strong>. Of course, we know you know it already! But here\u2019s a refresher – Section 38 makes it possible to claim against a developer for a breach of duty with regards to building regulations.
Sounds good right! The only thing is since being put into the act it hasn\u2019t really been enforced. The new bill will aim to change this, and the timeframe is also 15 years in which to claim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
8. The New Homes Ombudsman<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
Quite simply, here we have a new role to combat the number of new builds in recent years hitting the news for a range of building safety defects. The main difference between this role and the Building Safety Regulator is that this role revolves specifically around disputes relating to new homes, and providing a solution to problems that arise.
A further benefit is transparency, directness and clarity. At present, there are four different authorities to which they may need to register a complaint. The ombudsman will aim to streamline this process. So let\u2019s look at some functions<\/span><\/strong>, powers<\/span><\/strong> and sanctions<\/span><\/strong>;<\/p>\n\n\n\n- \n
\n- \n
\n- \n
To enforce a code of practice for new residential properties.<\/strong><\/h6>\n<\/li>\n- \n
To provide a simple way for homeowners to make complaints.<\/strong><\/h6>\n<\/li>\n- \n
To force builders to make improvements.<\/strong><\/h6>\n<\/li>\n- \n
To ban shoddy contractors from any government schemes such as Help to Buy.<\/strong><\/h6>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
So how will this affect homebuilders? Well, it means they will have to;<\/p>\n\n\n