Source · Select Committees · Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee
Recommendation 8
8
Paragraph: 38
It seems self-evident that responsibility for funding remediation works lies jointly with the industry and...
Conclusion
It seems self-evident that responsibility for funding remediation works lies jointly with the industry and the Government. Whilst we welcome the assurances that Pre-legislative scrutiny of the Building Safety Bill 59 the Government is looking at potential financing options for recovering costs, in the short term we see no alternative to the Government itself, and therefore the taxpayer, footing much of the bill. We can think of no other means by which the necessary works can be carried out quickly enough.
Paragraph Reference:
38
Government Response
Acknowledged
HM Government
Acknowledged
The Government has made an unprecedented investment in building safety to protect leaseholders from unaffordable costs. The Government has committed to fully fund the cost of replacing unsafe cladding for all leaseholders in higher-rise buildings of over seven storeys (18 metres) - ensuring tax-payer funding is targeted at removing the most dangerous materials from the highest risk buildings in line with independent expert advice. We recognise that the industry that was responsible for this legacy of unsafe buildings should be made to contribute for compromising public safety. This is why we will look to introduce a levy on developers as part of the process of the new regime. We are also are extending the limitation period under section 1 of the Defective Premises Act 1972 from six years to fifteen, with retrospective effect. The Defective Premises Act creates a right to bring a claim for compensation in the civil courts for work which has made a dwelling unfit for habitation. Our change means that claims for compensation will be able to be brought for buildings that were built defectively up to fifteen years prior to the provision coming into force.