Brunel beside the
launching chains
of the "Great Eastern".
UPDATE FOR LEASEHOLDERS...continued / page 2 |
||
| We had a duty to inform the insurance
company who insure the Estate and we had to indicate to them that
we were going to take action to put right the defects. It made sense
to us to also take on Chris Easton and Mark Fairweather to act on
our behalf as they were familiar with the issues that were emerging.
We also had a duty to inform leaseholders of the problem, but were
aware that this had to be handled with care.There is no easy way to
tell 407 leaseholders of such problems, and at the same time try to
not frighten people or cause loss of confidence in Burrells. We needed
more information and we needed to indicate that that problem was being
sorted out. We also knew that it would potentially cost a lot of money
to put right. We felt it appropriate to approach the developer Galliards
and ask them to put these defects right. At this stage the only bit
of good news we had was that the insurance company would continue
to insure us and seemed happy with our actions. Also that Sundelta
had managed to get a court ruling regarding the liability of Galliards
since they also traded under an off the shelf company called Packamist
with no assets. The court ruling found that Galliards could not hide
behind Packamist, and that Galliards were liable. A very important
ruling. In this case, Galliards tried to show that Packamist was a
separate company and had nothing to do with Galliards. Our strategy
was to work with Galliards and get them to rectify the defects, at
first they appeared co-operative and at one stage we were hopeful
of exchanging contracts for them to do the work. However they backed
off from this and essentially our dealings with them became more strained.
We were now faced in having the leaseholders to finance initially
the works on the defects until such time as we managed to persuade
Galliards through litigation, or any other means to finance the works. Back to page 1 .... On to page 3 |
We could just pay for the works ourselves
and not resort to litigation, which is an expensive undertaking. However
our information was that we stood a good chance of winning. We are
now more confident than ever in this respect, as you will see later.
What ever happened on the legal side we still had to put the defects
right. But first we had to know the exact extent of the defects and
evidence them as they are found, in the presence of Galliards own
surveyors so that they were present as defects were uncovered.Once
we felt confident with the issues and felt we had sufficient information,,
though by no means the full picture, we held on Open Meeting to inform
all leaseholders. For those who attended, we hope you feel we were
able to strike the right balance. Giving all the information available
without compromising our investment. Everyone now should be aware
of the discussions held there. Action plan for the works As regards the works we have initiated an action plan. It was decided to have three phases. Phase one is the implementation of the TBA report recommendations. Phase two major works on the defects to make the Estate fire safer. Phase three less serious works on the remaining defects. Phase one is budgeted for and has almost been completed. Essentially this gives more warning should there be a fire in one of the blocks. The survey on the Estate has now been completed. We now await the final report of its results which will be presented to the directors towards the end of July. We will then have a block by block meeting with residents to discuss the faults relevant to their particular block. The work required will then be put out to competitive tender and we hope then the works will start on phase two by about September. |
Why inspect all blocks? Since The Wheelhouse, the block where the problems were first apparent, was built by Galliards, we felt it made sense to inspect all other blocks built by them to see if the faults were consistent. They are. Some may be wondering why we have investigated those blocks not built by Galliards. We felt that there would always be an uncertainty for those blocks, and there would always be a doubt as to whether they contained defects. As it happens, defects have been found in these blocks, though to a lesser degree than the Galliard blocks. We are pursuing Halifax Homes in this respect. Some may ask why the building control authorities did not pick up these defects, in our case London Borough of Tower Hamlets. A good question, the question arises did they ever physically inspect the blocks as they were built? Whatever the case, the House of Lords has decreed we cannot sue them in cases like this. A point we did find surprising. With some of the smaller blocks, NHBC acted as the building control, here we are pursuing our claim with them. What is important is that these defects are put right, we will have to pay for this out of our service charges. There is absolutely no alternative to this. If these defects are not put right, the Estate would become uninsurable. The mortgage companies would call in their loans and all the flats would become worthless. If the extra service charges are not paid to fund the works, they will not be done and we will be in the situation as described above. All that can be done to make this less painful for Leaseholders is being considered. We will also ensure that the costs will be apportioned to each block in as fair way as possible. Certificate of Compliance There does seem some confusion about the ‘Certificate of Compliance’ we mentioned at |
|
[ home page ] [ newsletters ] [ regulations ] [ links ] [ useful numbers ] [ surveyor's report ] [ contact us ] |
||