Residents of tower with Grenfell-style cladding told they must foot £2m bill - Sensationalist Headlines

[url]https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jan/17/citiscape-croydon-2m-recladding-bill-prompted-grenfell-disaster[/url] [quote]“Terrified” residents of a housing complex clad in similar flammable panels to Grenfell tower are facing a bill of £2m to make their homes safe after the building’s owner said it was not its responsibility to pay. The freehold is owned by a company owned by the family trust of the multi-millionaire property mogul Vincent Tchenguiz, and its property agent has told residents that work recladding the Citiscape complex in Croydon will begin “once full funds are in place”. The agent was told by the government to remove the cladding five months ago; last week, the housing minister issued a statement suggesting that the landlord was responsible for ensuring residents’ safety. But freeholder Proxima GR Properties has insisted that it is not obliged to cover the costs of the work, warning leaseholders in the 93 apartments that the bill will increase if they delay payment. Leaseholders are fighting the charge of [B]up to £31,300 per flat, which could be levied as early as March[/B]. Some said it was more than they earned in a year and that they feared for their safety. In a statement a group of them said they had been “left terrified by what could happen in the event of a fire”.[/quote]

"Why should I pay to replace substandard shit, that would eat into the profits we made because of cutting corners in the first place" :downs:

You absolute turds of human beings

I hope the owner gets sued into debt

[QUOTE=J!NX;53060049]I hope the owner gets sued into debt[/QUOTE] I hope the owner gets locked up. That shit should not fly.

[QUOTE=ReligiousNutjob;53060051]I hope the owner gets locked up. That shit should not fly.[/QUOTE] If he was sued into debt hopefully the natural next thing would be to lock him up

"give me £2 million or i'll allow my own building to burn down"?

Dude should automatically lose ownership of the property on the spot for an action like this.

The freeholder is well known. He was arrested and investigated over the Icelandic banking crisis years ago. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Tchenguiz#SFO_Case_Timeline[/url]

I cannot fathom how they thought they would get away with this, on such a hot button incident that's never really left people's minds.

I know as a headline it can be very sensational but genuinely I don't know the legal position about it. Would be interesting to see what someone who knows the legalities think of it. The building I've been in for the last few years has had occasional works, boiler upgrades/electrical works and other things. Never would there be the expectation of the freeholder to foot the bill, they don't receive any income (as far as I'm aware) beyond car-park permits and presumed back-hand payments from the management agency.

What a trash bag

How is this even legal? This is absolutely retarded.

The UK is the country of the shitbaggiest landlords alive. Every single week I hear complaints about landlords - mostly from vulnerable people - and I want to wring their damn necks. A hell of a lot of people in this country are making business off seeing how far they can scam and abuse their customers in ways that profoundly damage their lives.

Shameful, funnily enough this isn't the first time this has happened post Grenfell

Shame this fucker didn't get locked in a burning room so he has a semblance of an idea of the kind of threat looming over these people. It would be nice if the government did more to step in and bash arses like this guy over the head but unfortunately the Conservatives have little interest in such things unless it's to cover for their own failings. [editline]18th January 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Jon27;53060630]The UK is the country of the shitbaggiest landlords alive. Every single week I hear complaints about landlords - mostly from vulnerable people - and I want to wring their damn necks. A hell of a lot of people in this country are making business off seeing how far they can scam and abuse their customers in ways that profoundly damage their lives.[/QUOTE] Honestly I've heard some vile stories from areas like London where landlords partition single flats into separate rooms and rent out each room to very low income (desperate) or immigrant tenants who don't know any better. Or landlords renting out properties which aren't fit to live in. Not to mention buy to let is becoming a growing pain in the ass when it stops first time buyers from finding a home. As I said, there needs to be better government oversight on this but good luck with that when you have a party of marionettes, sock puppets and inanimate furniture in charge.

Sorta suprised that the owner of the building is not being lynched. Seriously, I wouldn't fault anyone who'd beat the shit out of the owner for this. Shit is absolutely asinine.

Maybe I'm just being an ignorant American here, but how exactly in the fuck do you compel this? Is there some clause in the lease that basically says "oh by the way if I ask for extreme sums of money out of nowhere, fuck you pay me."?

The owner of the building is not dealing with a known life hazard on his habited building? Is this fucking legal?

government is likely going to push back and demand they retract that demand and pay up themselves. Landlord was ordered to remove the cladding, they'd damn well better do it.

[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;53061077]government is likely going to push back and demand they retract that demand and pay up themselves. Landlord was ordered to remove the cladding, they'd damn well better do it.[/QUOTE] Hope each and every tenant sues the pants off the landlord.

[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;53061077]government is likely going to push back and demand they retract that demand and pay up themselves. Landlord was ordered to remove the cladding, they'd damn well better do it.[/QUOTE] This is probably whats gonna happen. Shit like this happens all the time until someone makes a call to the relevant government agency.

The biggest problem is when you lease a property you have to pay a yearly service charge, so if he does retract the extra charge for this work he'll most prob increase the yearly change to claim it back some how

£31,300 per flat!? Wouldn't that make it massively cheaper to just... Move [I]out!?[/I] Like, if I was in this situation, and my choices were "pay an absurdly huge bill to the landowner in order for them to fix basic shit in their own building" or "move to a different flat and be inconvenienced for a week or two", I'd start packing my stuff. I don't think this landowner has thought this through very well, if I'm honest. The smartest thing for the current occupants to do would be to just politely move out and let the greedy fucks enjoy their empty, unsafe building all on their own.

-snip-, I'm actually not sure - the article makes it sound like they own but maybe it is renting?

[QUOTE=Ona;53061456]£31,300 per flat!? Wouldn't that make it massively cheaper to just... Move [I]out!?[/I] Like, if I was in this situation, and my choices were "pay an absurdly huge bill to the landowner in order for them to fix basic shit in their own building" or "move to a different flat and be inconvenienced for a week or two", I'd start packing my stuff. I don't think this landowner has thought this through very well, if I'm honest. The smartest thing for the current occupants to do would be to just politely move out and let the greedy fucks enjoy their empty, unsafe building all on their own.[/QUOTE] Not everyone can pack up a move at a moments notice you know. You make that decision seem trivial.

[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;53061462]Not everyone can pack up a move at a moments notice you know. You make that decision seem trivial.[/QUOTE] Not trying to make it seem trivial, I'm just pointing out that it's almost certainly a more viable option for most people than footing a £31,300 bill. This isn't exactly a choice I'd wish on [I]anybody.[/I] But if the decision is "Move to a different flat" or "Pay an amount of money that could probably be used as a down-payment on an actual [I]house[/I]" Well, I know where I stand, there. Granted, I don't know much about real estate costs in the U.K but I know £31,300 is nothing to sniff at. Ideally this greedy fuck of a landlord gets the shit sued out of him, though. This is absolutely atrocious behaviour.

Fucking disgusting piece of shit. I hope his home burns down one day, not that the rich fuck couldn't buy another.

No one is going to pay out for the £31 grand bill, the Government should be coming back at the landlord for this bullshit and enforce them to pay for it, its their building and the fault isn't caused by the tenants so the responsibility is on the landlords, not the people renting. In the meantime, the current tenants are all within their rights to just outright squat in the flats while they contest this bullshit. If they can put together a class lawsuit I'm fairly sure a big solicitor will jump on it, this is a walk in walk out court case essentially.

[QUOTE=Electrocuter;53060834]The owner of the building is not dealing with a known life hazard on his habited building? Is this fucking legal?[/QUOTE] It shouldn't be. The HSE, with all their superior powers, should have been all over landlords and construction firms after Grenfell Tower but I don't think they have the resources or ability left in them, like many auditing-type government departments.