RR Paice Blog

REPERCUSSIONS FROM GRENFELL TRAGEDY

2018-02-15T15:35:00.000+00:00

It is now more than six months since the Grenfell Tower fire of 14 June 2017. This has led to reassessment of the fire risk of cladding to high rise buildings, many of which are residential. There have been reports in the papers and on the news of lessees facing payment liabilities for fire wardens patrolling buildings, pending the completion of a safety review of the building or the performance of any necessary remedial work.

Owners, therefore, of these buildings will have justifiable concerns for their own responsibilities under the Occupiers Liability Act of 1957 following this tragedy and the known fire risks from specific cladding which are being reviewed.

The guidance issued by the Department of Communities and Local Government and the various Fire Authorities will no doubt lead to the need to replace the cladding in many buildings, no doubt with safer solutions being adopted. Many reports suggest that the costs for this work will extend to many hundreds of millions of pounds. Many of the owners of these buildings are Local Authorities and Housing Associations who will struggle to meet the cost liabilities without funding from Central Government. They will also face the costs for re-housing lessees/tenants during the remedial works.

These building owners will naturally consider whether they may seek recompense from a third party which specified or supplied the cladding in the first instance which is now thought to be dangerous. These may typically include the architects and designers of the buildings who may have named and specified the cladding, contractors who supplied the product or the suppliers themselves. These parties should have insurance covering their potential liability. Typically designers will have the benefit of professional indemnity or design liability risks. Contractors will have public liability cover insuring against damage or personal injuries. Suppliers will have product liability insurance cover which will again insure the risk of damage or personal injury.

Any claimant will need to establish primary liability. Any culpability will also be judged at the time that the cladding, now considered to be dangerous, was specified or supplied. If the cladding complied with the relevant Fire Regulations and safety requirements at the time, this may be a sufficient defence.

A number of potential courses of action may be relevant. Firstly, a claim may arise against the contractor under Section 1 (1) of the Defective Premises Act 1972, if by use of improper materials a dwelling was not fit for habitation. The individual flats, would constitute dwellings but not the common areas and thus considered to fall within the scope of the Act.

Designers may be liable if they failed to make proper enquiry and investigation of the suitability of specific materials. It will not be a sufficient defence to state that they relied on the advice and recommendation of the manufacturer or supplier. The fire risk within the building may also rest with not only the choice of the cladding but also the manner in which when incorporated within the overall design of the building, the increased risk of fire arises. Contractors will also have a duty to warn should they become aware of any design defects, and this would include the choice of the cladding material. A further relevant consideration will be whether any cause of action is statue barred. Any claim for an alleged breach of contract will be subject to either a six or twelve year limitation period. These periods will commence from the date of breach of the contract. A claim in the tort of negligence has the potential to arise at a later date which is when the damage occurs.

If primary liability is established, the existence of insurance offering an indemnity against these liabilities should provide claimants with some comfort. Claimants will have to demonstrate that they have taken all steps to mitigate their loss and may well be met by an allegation of betterment from insurers. To claim the cost of new cladding to replace the old, may well confer an improved situation for a building. It will not be for insurers to subsidise a claimant who may have paid for a cheaper product but whom now seeks a more expensive replacement.

Given the anticipated cost for replacing cladding to high rise residential blocks will no doubt result in the Courts having to resolve these dilemmas in the years to come.

RR Paice

http://www.rrpaice.co.uk

UK construction expanded in August

2015-10-01T08:38:00.000+01:00

In a key survey of the sector, Britain’s construction industry showed strong expansion in August, after a poor performance in the first half of the year. The Chartered Institute of Purchasing, monthly purchasing managers index, showed that supply grew to 57.3, up from 57.1 in July.

The housebuilding sector recorded the fastest expansion in activity, but the outlook for commercial building work had also improved, according to the survey. If this growth is reflected in official figures, the construction sector is expected to continue to expand in the third quarter of 2015.

RR Paice

http://www.rrpaice.co.uk

Garage extension in Surrey

2015-08-31T15:09:00.000+01:00

We prepared plans for this development, submitted the planing permission approval and we are providing project management services.
Progress report in pictures (week 2)

Contact RR Paice for residential property development and project management.

http://www.rrpaice.co.uk

London boroughs restricting basement extensions

2015-07-28T11:41:00.000+01:00

In the more expensive areas of central London, where space is at a premium, it has become fashionable for developers to extend into the basements of residential property. Local authorities are starting to become concerned about the this practice and in a recent high profile case refused planning consent on a townhouse in Kensington.

When the owner took the case to the High Court the judge refused to quash the new planning policy and supported the decision of Kensington and Chelsea Council. The property could not be extended with a controversial, two-storey mega basement.

A strange outcome of this is that the property now looks like a seaside beach hut as the owner has painted it in candy stripes. It is claimed that this is meant as revenge on neighbours who had objected to plans to develop the property.

Contact RR Paice for advice on party-wall issues and residential property.

2012-07-09T16:43:00.000+01:00

The Government estimates that there are around 20,000 squatters in Britain. With the much publicised protests of Occupy London, the anti-capitalist protestors at Finsbury Square, St Paul's Cathedral and the Old Street Magistrates Court argue that there are around 1 million empty buildings in the UK and that communities should be able to make use of this space.

Commercial property owners will not be encouraged by the recent decision concerning the eviction of the Occupy London protestors from a vacant office building by Sun Street Property, a UBS subsidiary. Although UBS ultimately obtained possession the High Court Judgement emphasises the protracted process involved in evicting trespassers from commercial premises and the importance of following the possession procedure as set out in the Civil Procedure Rules Part 55 to the letter.

Commercial owners are able to apply for interim possession orders within 28 days of becoming aware of a trespass and failing to vacate with 24 hours of service of the order constitutes a criminal offence, however, it is well know that the police are often reluctant to get involved as these are deemed to be civil matters and it is difficult to pin the blame on the occupants. In this matter UBS applied to the Court for an interim injunction to prevent further protestors squatting on the site on the basis that the property was allegedly unsafe. It also sought a possession order and an order abridging time for service of the possession proceedings from the usual two days notice only 45 minutes.

The interim injunction and order for bridging time for service was granted on the same day at 6.45pm. At 9.10pm UBS solicitors served the protestors with the application by fixing the documents to the occupied property. At 9.15 a test message was sent to the protestors on a number they had provided informing them that a hearing of the claim had been listed for 10pm that night. The text message did not contain any information as to the location of the hearing. Unsurprisingly the protestors failed to attend and the Judge granted the injunction and the possession order in their absence.

The protestors subsequently applied to set aside the interim injunction and possession order arguing that the injunction should not have been granted without notice and should not have been sought in place of a possession order and the possession order should be set aside as they had no notice of the claim and no opportunity to defend it.
The High Court held that the shorter the period of notice permitted for service of a claim for possession, the more prominent the steps that must be taken to bring the claim to the defendant’s attention, especially where the defendant is not represented. The UBS notice to the protestors was held to be grossly inadequate.

The Court however considered that certain parts of the UBS claim had merit, the protestors submitted in defence that the health and safety concerns that had been previously raised by UBS had been dealt with and that the protestors rights under articles 10 (right of freedom of expression) and 11 (right to freedom of assembly and association of the European Convention on Human Rights) should be paramount.

The Court held that the protestors article 10 rights could be exercised anywhere, not necessarily within the UBS building and that UBS was not seeking to prevent the protestors expression just their occupation of the building. Equally the Court held that article 11 rights could not justify taking over a private property just because it was convenient. The Court also said that with regard to article 1 of the First Protocol of the Convention and that there was no authority to suggest that article 10 and 11 rights should override this right. The protestors did not appeal the decision and were evicted on the 30 January 2012.

RR Paice

http://www.rrpaice.co.uk