Cladding Court Case: Freeholder Hits Back at Government

The owner of Vista Tower in Stevenage has voiced dissatisfaction with the government’s portrayal of a court ruling on fire safety, as a ‘win for leaseholders’ in their recent cladding court case.

Grey GR faced legal action from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities for not addressing fire safety concerns found in 2019 rapidly enough.

The judge noted that the hold-ups were because of changing rules after the 2017 Grenfell Tower tragedy, including the introduction of the Building Safety Act 2022.

Grey GR has reproached the authorities for poor communication during this time, stating that despite its efforts to get financial assistance from the Building Safety Fund, the response has been slow and insufficient to cover the full costs.

A Grey GR representative stated: “The department’s claim is incorrect—interior works were done in 2023, and external façade repairs started early this year.

“We are hopeful to finish all repairs by Autumn 2025, and the court has recognized that the remediation order doesn’t affect our ability to speed up the process.

“Throughout the remediation, we encountered delays while trying to get clear instructions from the department to proceed quickly with the repairs.

“Our dealings with the government have been hindered by slow or no responses, constantly changing deadlines and criteria, and an ongoing readjustment of expectations.

“Following the decision, we look forward to progressing and wanting to help solve a problem we didn’t create, for the leaseholders’ benefit.”

Grey GR applied for the Building Safety Fund, set up on 1 June 2020 to remove hazardous cladding like that involved in the Grenfell disaster, using property tax funds.

Only £327,195 was granted in January 2021, which is far less than the £14.5 million estimated by consultants Tuffin Ferraby Taylor. In February 2024, an additional £3.733 million was released.

The situation was further complicated by new government guidance on fire risk assessments, leading Grey GR to withdraw its application under the old advice and reapply according to the new rules in 2022. The government saw this as a delay tactic, but the judge found it entirely sensible.

The judge conceded that there were delays from both parties and that these should be considered in the context of Grenfell and the subsequent overhaul of industry regulations and fire safety enforcement for tall buildings.

The judge also said that the government’s criticism of Grey GR for applying for funding was unwarranted, as the government itself had encouraged such applications without means testing, especially since Grey GR wasn’t responsible for the defects.

The government’s argument that Grey GR should have fully funded the repairs without seeking government assistance was deemed impractical and unreasonable, considering the immense cost and the fact that the freeholder wasn’t at fault for the defects.