Grenfell remains a byword for political failure

The Grenfell Tower fire, which killed 72 people in 2017, was the consequence of years of poor political choices, resulting in watered down building regulations and safety standards. Constant deregulation had led the UK to become a magnet for cheap combustible cladding that was banned elsewhere in Europe, culminating in a tragedy that took more lives in the capital than any other single event since the Blitz.

Ongoing political failure subsequently led to a nationwide building safety crisis, as large amounts of building cladding were deemed unsafe, yet no clarity or plan emerged as to who would pay for its removal.

The quest for accountability for the tragedy has sadly turned into a vast blame game, with the government, developers and those responsible for the manufacturing of cladding materials desperate to distance, even absolve, themselves from any kind of responsibility.

The complexity of the situation was neatly summarised last month by Richard Millett KC, lead counsel to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, who showed a graphic illustrating the intricate web of responsibility.

Since Grenfell, the government has targeted the two groups absent from the graphic – freeholders and leaseholders – while hardly chasing any developers or cladding manufacturers.

Clearly, liability for cladding remediation rests with those responsible for the construction of unsafe buildings and a government that allowed a deficient regulatory regime to exist.

By assigning liability for remediation payments to freeholders and leaseholders, who played no part in the crisis, without investigating their ability to pay for remediation, the government is targeting the wrong groups. Since 2017, it has become clear that the ‘polluter pays’ principle, which should have forced those who caused this crisis to pay for it, has been abandoned.

Pinning liability on freeholders will not generate any more money to pay for remediation. Instead, it will plunge some freeholders into insolvency and shift responsibility and liability for remediation on to leaseholders, most of which will be unable to fund such major works.

The government’s approach to this issue is contradictory and has lacked thought, consultation and challenge every step of the way. The distinct lack of detail in its plans has not only complicated matters but also dramatically slowed the remediation process, leaving leaseholders in unsafe housing for longer.

Of course, overhauling building safety post-Grenfell was always going to be complicated. However, the government has, sadly, prolonged the process and exacerbated the situation.

Instead of pursuing freeholders and leaseholders, it should adopt a ‘safety-first’ approach, whereby buildings should be fixed as a first priority and then liability pursued later, ensuring safety of leaseholders while making the real culprits pay for remediation.