Many services such as cleaning and gardening contracts provided to blocks of flats rely on minimum wage labour. With the National Living Wage rising in April this year from £8.21 to £8.72 for workers over the age of 25 – an increase of some 6.2% – once again leaseholders are going to feel the pain.
Leaseholders who are unable to recover VAT on the service charges they pay, continue to suffer from VAT increasing from the previous long term norm of 17.5% to 20% in 2011. Flat owners, via their service charge, have also suffered continual rises in insurance premiums due to both five years of IPT (insurance premium tax) increases from 6% to 12% since 2015; the abolition of the 3.4% national insurance rebate on porters wages; and a rise from 2% – 3% in employers auto-enrolment pension contributions.
Added to this, the rise in the minimum wage may be small but it is yet another expense to hit leaseholders, already living with the spectre of big bills for safety improvements on their blocks (see our 9 January blog for more on this).
At Ringley all our Relationship Managers are now letting clients know in advance of their March/April budgets that, to be prudent, provisions must be made for these cost increases.
Last Thursday the Law Commission published its report into leasehold reforms. The Commission puts forward three schemes for determining the premium to be paid by flat owners wanting to extend their lease. Each of them will make enfranchisement cheaper, saving leaseholders money. Each scheme uses a different method to determine the price of enfranchisement and allow further reforms to make the process simpler and to reduce uncertainty.
The report also examines the way in which the value of the landlord’s interest is calculated, to identify reforms that could lower premiums without breaching the UK’s human rights legislation that protects landlords’ property interests.
Alongside the three schemes, the Law Commission has put forward a range of other options for reform. These include:
Prescribing the rates used in calculating the price, to remove a key source of disputes, and make the process simpler, more certain and predictable.
Helping leaseholders with onerous ground rents, by capping the level of ground rent used to calculate the premium.
Developing an online calculator for determining the premium, making it easier to find out the cost of enfranchisement, and make the process more transparent.
Enabling leaseholders who are collectively enfranchising a block of flats to avoid paying “development value” to the landlord unless and until they actually undertake further development.
What is being proposed are ‘cash and carry’ lease extensions, which would lead to fewer referrals to the over-worked first-tier tribunal. While the legislative change is not retrospective, it would have the retroactive effect of devaluing existing landlords’ interests that arise from the lease. All freehold reversionary properties are valued by chartered surveyors on the basis of the lease length and terms and, as the RICS definition of ‘market value’ includes hope value, in effect the valuation today includes the probability of some lease extension income. If this is to be curtailed in law, then the effect is a reduction in the value of the landlord’s asset.
So while this
proposed change does not alter the lease contract itself, it has two
impacts: devaluation of the reversionary freehold interest and reduction
in the premium payable to the landlord for each specific lease extension.
Ultimately, any proposals that make leasehold extensions cheaper can devalue the asset. This will be very unpopular with landlords And while these reforms would save leaseholders money, the erosion of the benefits of being a freeholder would likely see an increase in non-professionally managed blocks, absentee freeholders and other court processes.
However, there may be additional upsides for leaseholders by removing the ability of unscrupulous freeholders or their agents to put pressure on leaseholders by refusing to negotiate until the 11th hour in order to extract more money than would be reasonably expected.
Forget ‘location, location, location’, new research published by bridging loan lender Market Financial Solutions reveals that size really does matter for British homebuyers. According to a survey of more than 1000 homeowners, the size of a property is the single most important consideration, with 90% of people polled saying it was ‘important’ or ‘very important’ to them when they bought their current home.
Homeowners were asked what mattered to them most when they were looking for a new house or flat. At the top of buyers’ wishlists were size, outdoor space and quality of finish. Location came fourth, with 87% of us caring most about the distance of our home to the nearest town or city.
Other key factors were:
Garage or off-street parking (86%)
How ‘built-up’ is the local area (83%)
Transport links (83%)
Broadband and mobile connectivity
Whether the property is detached,
semi-detached or terraced (81%)
Local shops, cafés, bars and
Proximity of public spaces and
Proximity to good schools (77%)
Age of the property (74%)
Potential for extensions and
Culture of the community and
proximity of cultural sites (67%)
Despite only coming in fourth in the survey’s rankings, location is still a key factor but the quality of broadband and mobile connectivity is deemed marginally more important than easy access to local amenities or the proximity of parks or good schools.
It comes as a surprise then – with homebuyers putting size as their first priority – that the potential to extend a property came so far down the list. The price of an extension is often considerably less than the cost of moving and it can add considerable value if done to a high standard and with careful planning.
Extending a home is inevitably harder for leasehold flat owners than for freeholders but it may still be a possibility. So if size matters to you, it’s well worth talking to a chartered surveyor before you put your home on the market. Of course, permissions will be needed. These could include planning consent as well as (probably) a licence to alter and a lease alteration but it may turn out to be a viable – and potentially less costly – alternative to moving.
Yesterday, a new form (EWS 1) was launched, designed to record what testing has been carried out on the external wall construction of HRRBs – buildings more than 18m high. This is good news for leaseholders – and building owners and managers.
Since the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) Advice Note 14 was adopted by lenders, many flat owners have had problems getting mortgages, or even remortgages, on HRRBs (high risk residential buildings).
Developers are often willing to provide a statement of what was specified (but as we know – that might not be what was installed) but lenders won’t necessarily accept them for lending purposes. Flat owners who bought their homes before the Advice Note came into force, are left unable to remortgage – and may even be facing higher interest rates on their mortgage as a penalty for something that is entirely beyond their control.
AN14 called for surveyors to provide proof that buildings
don’t have dangerous cladding and has stalled mortgage offers while assessments
are done, trapping leaseholders in flats that have become unsellable. In many
cases, valuers have erred on the side of caution and set the value of some
properties at zero. ARMA CEO Nigel Glen reports that one of his members has
at least 500 stalled sales as a result. That firm is not alone.
So what’s the difference between AN14 and the new EWS 1? One big change is that there is now a line telling lenders and buyers that they cannot rely on the form – only the building owner/manager can. At first glance this doesn’t sound helpful but the authors have worked hard to ensure it will unlock the current snarl-up in the flat sales market.
This is how it is hoped it will work:
To-date, fire risk assessors have provided their opinion on the safety or otherwise of blocks to the building owner and so could end up answerable to any third party who relies on the report. That assessor is potentially liable to multiple lenders and buyers. Assessors’ indemnity insurance premiums have gone through the roof – and some can’t get insurance at all. This means buildings can’t be assessed and the whole process grinds to a halt.
The new form allows assessors to
disclaim liability to everyone but the person who commissioned the report. Mortgage
lenders can decide for themselves whether or the information can be relied on.
The general feeling is that at least some will.
There are also two distinct alternatives listed in EWS 1 for assessors to choose:
Option A – external wall materials are unlikely to support combustion; or
Option B – combustible materials are present in the external wall.
It is likely that an invasive inspection will be almost always be required – desktop exercises are out. Good. And any investigation must include evidence of the fire performance of the actual materials installed. This means safe buildings can be recorded in a way that will – hopefully – get the market moving.
We are pleased that there is now an approved form and ‘declaration’ to give much-needed help to leaseholders. However, the challenge is that ultimately this cladding problem is still costing the homeowner. Invasive testing is now pretty much a requirement on HRRBs, often at more than £5,000 a time.
Remediating the many buildings that are failing inspections has to be a priority for 2020. And it’s one the government should not leave to chance.
Ringley CEO Mary-Anne Bowring was joined by Life by Ringley MD Sam Hay at an RICS event in Manchester in November to talk about the future of building safety.
Last month, we blogged about the ‘golden thread’ of data that Dame Judith Hackitt’s building safety review is recommending should be established for every high-risk residential building (ie, one that is 10 storeys or higher) in the country. The review also sets out the framework for a new ‘Joint Competent Authority’ to ensure that safety is placed firmly at the heart of the property industry.
The Hackitt review proposes the new JCA should have an overarching role, bringing together local authority building standards, fire and rescue authorities and the HSE. The report recognises the role that the CDM regulations have had in improving accountability and responsibility for safety and sees a future where these bodies all work together to maximize the focus on building safety within HRRBs across the entire building lifecycle. The recommendation is this: the best way to get genuinely effective safety management is to establish a new body that ensures feed in from other bodies is made an absolute requirement.
As we explained in our previous blog, one of the key responsibilities of the proposed JCA will be to create and maintain a database of all HRRBs and key duty holders for those buildings – whether under construction or already occupied. It will also ensure duty holders focus on mitigating building safety risks during the design and construction phase.
A new role of building safety manager will also be created – above and beyond the role of the property manager. The increased focus on reducing ongoing safety risks in HRRBs is not the property manager’s job – and is certainly not achievable within the same base management fee per unit.
The responsibilities that will fall to the building safety manager are likely to include:
periodic safety case reviews to demonstrate that building safety is being maintained and that residents are properly engaged (this may also be triggered if a significant refurbishment is planned); and
dutyholders required to make building improvements where necessary, to reduce building risks so far as is reasonably practicable.
The JCA is a new independent body and will be expected to
assess and deal with immediate
ad-hoc building safety concerns on HRRBs including:
the mandatory reporting of safety concerns by dutyholders;
referrals made by Environmental Health Officers (EHOs);
escalated referrals made by residents of HRRBs.
The JCA can also expect to:
request testing of construction products that are critical to HRRB building safety on a reactive basis when concerns arise, including information exchanges with all HRRB dutyholders in exceptional circumstances.
request annual reports from product testing houses providing summary details of the types of tests carried out and the numbers of passes and fails reported; and
help the proposed new government body to validate and assure the guidance produced by industry to meet the outcomes-based goals of the Building Regulations.
So a whole new raft of responsibilities then. Enhanced levels of training will be required as the industry gets to grip with the new regime – and there may be a need for higher levels of PI insurance for block managers as they take on these obligations. At present these are only recommendations but watch this space – our industry is changing and there will be more to come.
Wow. The problem of combustible cladding on residential blocks just went up a level. Following the continued failure of building owners to replace unsafe cladding on 10 blocks in Leeds, Bradford and Huddersfield, West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service is threatening “prohibition of the entire building, or parts of it” if the owners can’t reassure them that they are taking action.
All the buildings were found to have dangerous cladding shortly after the Grenfell Tower fire in June 2017, with WYFRS pointing to a “lack of action” from some of those legally responsible for the blocks.
Property magazine Inside Housing contacted the owners of all the buildings involved and did receive assurances that they are working to tackle the problem. However, the latest government figures show that 318 of 436 buildings with Grenfell-style cladding have yet to complete remediation work.
An unknown number of other high and medium-rise buildings have been found with dangerous cladding of other kinds – a figure which it is thought could run into the tens of thousands.
In a move which – depending on your political viewpoint – could either be considered as unashamedly wooing leaseholders or simply doing the right thing, the Labour Party yesterday published a last-minute housing manifesto promising tough action on cladding removal.
The 20-page document updates Labour’s previous position on fire safety and pledges to:
Name and shame building owners who have yet to remove dangerous cladding and set a deadline for them to put a remediation plan in place.
Pass emergency legislation placing responsibility on owners to do the work, with powers put in place for councils to impose fines, followed by the “takeover” by the state of blocks that don’t have a plan.
An immediate widening of the government-sponsored testing regime to cover other forms of dangerous cladding
Set up a national task force, with the involvement of residents, to inspect buildings and prioritise fire safety work
Find additional funding to help pay for this work
It is unclear exactly how the state might “take over” blocks that don’t comply with a set removal deadline. This prospect would certainly be enough to put some voters off.
In fact, these dangerous materials could have been banned years ago by Labour following incidents in Germany and USA, who simply banned these ACM cladding products. The government at that time should have had its eyes and ears open and done the same!
In the same
week that the fire service reported that a worrying number of smoke alarms in
rental properties don’t work, the Royal Institute of British
Architects (RIBA) has told the government that sprinklers shouldn’t be seen as the
answer to all fire safety problems in blocks of flats.
architects’ body supports the use of sprinklers in high-rise flats, describing
them as a “highly effective means of life protection”. But they also point out
that installing sprinklers “should not be used as a means to compensate for
other essential life safety measures or to justify reducing minimum standards.”
As well as
sprinklers, RIBA say centrally addressable fire alarm systems should be
required in new and converted multiple occupancy residential buildings.
wholeheartedly agree with Jane Duncan, chair of the RIBA Expert Advisory Group
for Fire Safety, when she says “It is over two years since the Grenfell Tower
tragedy, yet far too little has changed”.
fire regulations are not fit for purpose, she says. It’s not right that we
should lag behind both Scotland (where sprinklers will soon be required in all
multiple occupancy residential buildings) and Wales, where sprinklers have been
required in all new and converted residential buildings since 2013.
So we join RIBA in calling on the next government to maintain a strong focus on fire safety and give absolute priority to the radical overhaul of the building regulations that is so badly needed.
To that we would add a plea to all landlords, property managers and residents to check their smoke and fire alarms regularly. This is as important for BTL landlords and their tenants as it is for leaseholders.
And it’s especially important at this time of year when we are all plugging in our Christmas lights and using more candles and open fires. So if you have battery-operated alarms, check and change the batteries regularly. No matter how annoying it is when they go off by mistake when you’re making toast, don’t ever be tempted to remove the batteries – that alarm could save your life.
Last week, the BBC carried a story about the problems faced by disabled residents living in flats if they need to evacuate their homes in a fire. One council tenant commented that she had received no communication from her local authority explaining what their evacuation policy is, so she decided to take matters into her own hands.
This lady has sensibly spoken to her neighbours and asked a group of them to help carry her out of the building if they need to escape the building in an emergency. The BBC investigated around 700 London blocks, speaking to residents about the arrangements for their buildings. They didn’t find a single evacuation lift.
At Ringley, since the Grenfell Tower fire, we have been following the work being done by the government on building safety and closely monitoring the leading industry analysis. We recently took part in RICS CPD events on the changes that are coming through as a result of the 2017 tragedy.
The challenge for the property sector is that rarely are regulations retrospective; as the BBC pointed out, there are few buildings with special fire evacuation lifts. The advice is always that standard lifts should not be used for evacuation in case of fire because, unless suitably adapted and protected, lift shafts act as a funnel, enabling smoke to spread through the building. Generally, electrics automatically shut down during a fire and fire fighting lifts run off of emergency generators, not from mains electricity.
There is now work going on in this area to identify whether adaptations
to buildings could be made to incorporate purpose-built evacuation lifts, so
the regulations around lift use may change in future. In 2018 the government
instructed a review of the approved building regulations document relating to
fire and we await the outcome with interest.
In the meantime, what we do at Ringley to look after our disabled residents as best we can, is to write to owners and residents asking them to let us know if they or their neighbours need ‘special assistance’ in case of an emergency evacuation. We database this information so that should such an emergency arise we can liaise with the fire department to enable them to help those that need it most.
So if you or one of your neighbours is worried about how
they would escape the building in the worst case scenario, please call or email
us to let us know. Our most important job is to keep residents safe.
With vigils held earlier today for the people killed and injured in Friday’s horrific terror attack at London Bridge, our thoughts are with the friends and families of the victims. And as leasehold specialists, the team here at Ringley is also well aware of the implications of the threat of terrorism for property managers, their clients, and residents.
Terrorism cover used to be included in block buildings
insurance policies up to a certain limit. In 2003, this was replaced by full
all-risks terrorism insurance from the government-backed Pool Re scheme. Other
less comprehensive (and cheaper) policies are also available in the London
It is likely to be a condition of the lease that blocks are
covered and the RICS Service Charge
Residential Code recommends giving terrorism insurance “serious
consideration”. Anyone who arranges buildings insurance must ensure they comply
with the terms of the lease and the Mortgage Lenders Handbook. If either of
these states that “all risks” or “explosion” need to be covered, your block
must have terrorism insurance. If the worst were to happen, non-compliance
would mean the building owner or, in self-managing blocks the RMC directors, being
held responsible. This could put personal assets at risk. For leaseholders, if
an act of terrorism damages your block, you will still have to pay your
mortgage and find the money for alternative accommodation while repairs or
rebuilding takes place. So the right
cover is vital.
The other aspect to take into account is the impact on residents, not necessarily of a direct attack on their home but of any incident close by. On Friday, immediately following the events at London Bridge, the police put the whole area into lockdown. As with the 2017 attacks at nearby Borough Market, local residents were told they couldn’t go home and must find somewhere else to stay.
As soon as any claim is made, blocks covered by the Pool Re policy will be paid out by their insurer who will then recover the costs. This means, if needed, temporary accommodation will be paid for. Other schemes may not pay out until the incident has been certified by the government as terrorism – which may take a day or two – and residents may be left out of pocket. So before taking out a policy that looks like good value, read the small print carefully.
Statistically, the chances of a residential block being targeted by terrorists are low – in fact, they are literally one in a million according to disaster experts. But with apartment blocks springing up all over our towns and cities, it is still possible that your building may be affected. So check your lease – and your insurance policy – to make sure you don’t fall foul of the law or leave residents unprotected.
At an RICS event in Manchester yesterday Ringley CEO Mary-Anne Bowring and LifebyRingley MD Sam Hay spoke about the impact on block management of Dame Judith Hackitt’s building safety review. For now, this only applies to high-risk residential buildings (HRRBs) – which are defined as those with 10 or more storeys.
One big idea is the proposal to create a ‘golden thread’ of key
information about every new HRRB in the country. This data is to be digitally
recorded, maintained and made readily available to all stakeholders, including
The kind of information that will be recorded is
Size and height of the building
Escape and fire compartmentation information
Systems in operation
Permanent fixtures and fittings
This will not only apply to new buildings, so you can imagine the difficulty in retrospectively piecing this together for existing stock. There are estimated to be between 2,000 and 3,000 such buildings in the UK.
Block managers are only too well aware that a lack of complete, accurate and properly maintained building information is common and throws up a number of challenges. The building owner doesn’t have to keep the information that is required to be able to easily and effectively manage building safety throughout the building life cycle so it is often virtually impossible to work out whether any changes have been made between the original design and completion. This may have an impact on the building safety strategy as modifications and refurbishments are made over the years.
The worry here is that what gets lost is the fire scheme, as originally conceived. Also when carrying out a major works project or fully refurbishing a building, it is difficult for both block managers and their contractors to work out what impact any changes might have on safety in that building.
This information gap has become all too clear during the inquiry into the Grenfell fire, where a recent refurbishment contributed to the tragic loss of life. In future, with everyone involved in the operation and maintenance of the building as well as the fire service having access to this ‘golden thread’, building design will be made completely transparent. Any changes that could impact safety can then be managed through a formal review process – another of Dame Judith’s recommendations which Mary-Anne and Sam also discussed with their audience.
Of course, as we point out above,
these proposed changes only apply to HRRBs, ie those blocks that are above 18m
high. But anything designed to keep flat owners and renters safer in their beds
is to be applauded. At least it’s a start.