Residents of a south London development have won £550,000 in compensation for cladding defects at their block of flats
As reported by The Guardian, the Exchange complex in Bermondsey was found to have a number of fire safety issues, including “aluminium composite material (ACM), combustible insulation, and inadequate cavity barriers”.
Built by Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) and United Living, the complex, which comprises five mixed-use and residential blocks, was completed in 2014. However, building safety issues were discovered in the aftermath of the Grenfell Tower fire. According to Inside Housing, both the housing association and property services company completed “large-scale works” at their own cost.
It is understood that residents of the development launched legal action against the companies for costs “related to having to live in unsafe homes and the inconvenience caused by the building works”. The sum includes court and expert fees. The settlement terms also specify that “none of the works or legal costs can be passed on to any future leaseholders or residents”.
Speaking to The Guardian, resident Kyle Taylor said: “We are pleased that NHG and United Living have at last done the right thing, but disappointed it took so long. We bought our homes in good faith and were devastated to discover they were not safe because of cost-cutting construction.
“We have had to live in unsafe homes for many years and are relieved that we can now start putting this behind us.”
Taylor added: “It was really important for me, from the perspective of public interest, that we could be an example for people that it is possible to win on the basis of truth and reality and what’s correct and just, but also to inspire some [other] people to go for it.”
The £550,000 compensation money is expected to go towards 76 leaseholders and independent freeholders.
A spokesperson for NHG said the housing association was “pleased to have reached a resolution” on the case, “having overseen the required building safety work at the Exchange”.
“We have since carried out satisfactory Fire Risk Assessments for External Walls on all the buildings,” they added.
“Our duty is to ensure the safety of our buildings and residents, and this is always our top priority. Our publicly stated policy is that we do not recharge leaseholders for the costs of remediation work to external walls or balconies where they have been deemed to pose a risk of spreading fire.”
Representing the claimants was Christian Hansen of Bindmans, who commented: “What we’ve seen is that a lot of constructors are basically dragging their feet, they’re not keen to do as many works as they should and they’re fighting these cases. I can only hope that settlements like this will be a bit of a wake-up call to them that actually they should be settling these things sooner than they are.”
As previously reported by the FPA, a recent Supreme Court ruling confirmed that developers could pursue third-party contractors for historic safety defects under the Building Safety Act 2022 and the Defective Premises Act 1972 where remediation work has been carried out.