THE CONSUMER rights organisation explored the ‘growing phenomenon’ of waking watches being installed in fire risk blocks, the high costs and a not often ‘worthwhile service’.
Which? reported on the growth in use of the waking watches nationwide as part of the ‘cladding scandal’, noting that homeowners have been ‘forced to spend millions’ on the watches, or up to hundreds of pounds per month per flat owner, because buildings ‘are deemed unsafe’. The consumer group added that waking watches ‘can be forced upon’ leaseholders in buildings with ‘potentially dangerous’ cladding and other fire safety defects.
This can then mean costs are added to service charges, with watches installed once a building fails safety tests ‘created to try and avoid a repeat’ of the Grenfell Tower fire. However, many are ‘finding the costs too much to bear’, with leaseholders from four developments nationwide sharing their stories and noting that both they and neighbours ‘are struggling to cover the costs’, or ‘not even receiving a worthwhile service’.
On this, the leaseholders interviewed noted some wardens were ‘cutting corners or even sleeping on the job’, with the four developments in question alone spending £906,500 on waking watches so far. While watches are ‘intended as a temporary measure to protect homeowners until unsafe materials are removed’, the time taken to undertake such work can be ‘months or even years’, and so watches ‘can stay in place for long periods’, meaning ‘often substantial’ bills are ‘piling up’ for leaseholders.
Leaseholders are left paying for the watches instead of freeholders who own buildings, ‘despite them being unaware their flats were unsafe when they bought them, and not being to blame for the newly discovered poor safety standards’. The organisation noted that UK leaseholders are ‘potentially paying millions’ collectively ‘before any remediation work even starts’, with 590 buildings in London alone having watches – a potential cost of £144m a year for leaseholders.
One particular leaseholder told Which? that she had ‘personally spent’ £11,000 on a waking watch so far, with the failure of a test potentially making homes worthless and unable to sell. Alex Dickin, a leaseholder in Ipswich’s Cardinal Lofts, said that the waking watch there – installed on 6 November – is costing the 81 flats £5,625 a week, or £300 per flat per month, with costs ‘passed onto leaseholders without consultation’ by the building’s management agent.
Mr Dickin said that when he first saw the watch, he ‘didn’t expect’ leaseholders would have to fund them, and ‘didn’t really understand how it would cost that much. But when you realise that they’re there 24/7 and there’s always two of them, it hits you that, yeah, it would cost that much’. The monthly charge, for him, is ‘around 20% of my monthly income’, and is ‘something you don’t plan for. You never expect to pay two people to patrol your building’.
He noted in turn that the move ‘came out of the blue; it was a complete shock’, describing the wardens as a ‘constant reminder’ that the building is dangerous. Another leaseholder from a different building, Charlotte Daus, said her block paid £37,000 for ‘just 20 days’ of waking watch, adding that ‘it’s so out of control’, and while the cost has not yet been passed to leaseholders, she ‘fears it will be’, with the block ‘in limbo’ until it finds out in September 2021.
Ms Daus noted that people in the building feel ‘personally violated having these people in their space’, and that ‘it’s a constant reminder of the issues and a failure of fire safety’, having witnessed herself wardens ‘appearing to cut corners’. She added: ‘But I don’t want to blame them – it’s the system itself. I feel like my home’s been taken away from me already. Not a day goes past we don’t get reminded of it. It’s just a feeling of complete hopelessness.’
A St Albans leaseholder, who wished to remain anonymous, said they paid around £100 a week for a waking watch ‘removed after nine weeks when a new fire alarm was installed’, but in that time they say ‘wardens were caught sleeping, reading papers and watching football matches on the job’. As wardens only patrol communal areas, Which? asked, ‘would they really be able to spot a fire’, and it spoke to the National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) about the situation.
The NFCC said that wardens ‘would’ be able to spot a fire, but that watches ‘aren’t intended as a long-term solution’, pointing the organisation to its website section on waking watches. The NFCC’s website stated: ‘The aim of a waking watch is to ensure there is sufficient warning in the event of fire to support the evacuation strategy and has been utilised in buildings before the Grenfell Tower fire.
‘It is intended for very short periods of time whilst the increased risk is being urgently addressed through either remediation or the installation of a common fire alarm system. Building owners should move to install common fire alarms as quickly as possible to reduce or remove the dependence on waking watches. This is the clear expectation for buildings where remediation cannot be undertaken in the “short term”.
‘This approach should, in almost all circumstances, reduce the financial burden on residents where they are funding the waking watches.’
Concluding, Which? asked whether leaseholders can trust whether wardens are competent, to which the NFCC said companies providing watches ‘have a duty to ensure their staff are fully trained’.