Government to fund replacement of non-ACM cladding systems on residential buildings
On 11 March, the government announced that it would provide up to £1 billion in 2020/21 to fund the removal and replacement of unsafe non-ACM cladding systems on high-rise residential buildings.
Attitudes towards building safety have undergone a paradigm shift since the tragic events at Grenfell Tower. Since then, the government has introduced a wide-ranging package of measures to ensure that buildings, particularly those with Aluminum Composite (ACM) cladding, are made safe. Notably, the government last year introduced a fund of £600m for the replacement of unsafe ACM cladding from residential buildings, similar to the type that was in place on Grenfell Tower.
Although ACM cladding remains the government’s priority, it has now announced proposals to extend funding for the removal and replacement of non-ACM cladding, such as High Pressure Laminate panels (‘HPL’). The announcement follows the guidance issued by the government earlier in the year in its “Consolidated Advice Note on Building Safety”, and in particular, the views of its Expert Panel that HPL systems with a ‘C’ or ‘D’ (i.e. those with a medium or high contribution to fire) would not meet the requirements of the Building Regulations, and that owners of such buildings should replace those materials as soon as possible.
Funding will be available to both the social and private sectors. In the private sector, the fund will be for the benefit of leaseholders to ensure that their buildings are made safe; and in the social sector, where remediation costs would otherwise be too prohibitive.
What are the eligibility criteria?
As with the ACM fund last year, funding will be available for buildings that are 18m or above.
The government has also said that building owners will be required to pursue warranty claims and take “appropriate action against those responsible for putting unsafe cladding on these buildings, with any damages recovered paid to Government once recouped.”
What are warranty claims?
Warranty claims refer to claims made under latent defect insurance policies. Those policies provide cover for newly built properties in the event of an inherent defect that was not capable of being discovered through inspection before completion.
Typically, latent defect policies are triggered in the event of (a) a non-compliance with the relevant Building Regulations that applied at the time of construction/conversion; and (b) which causes a present or imminent danger.
Given the above, unsafe non-ACM cladding that has been installed in high-rise residential blocks is likely to meet those requirements.
What other claims might be available against those responsible for putting unsafe cladding on buildings?
Those involved with the original cladding installations may include Main Contractors, Architects, and specialist cladding subcontractors. The type of claims that can be brought against them will differ in each case, and will depend upon the nature of the relationships between the parties, and the specific work that was undertaken.
One route to making a recovery against those involved with the original cladding installation is under the Defective Premises Act 1972.
The Defective Premises Act imposes a duty on builders and any other professionals who take on work in connection with the provision of a dwelling. It requires the work to be done in a professional or workmanlike manner, with proper materials, and that the dwelling is for habitation when completed. The duty is owed to every person who acquires a legal or equitable interest in the dwelling.
Summary
The announcement of funding for the remediation of non-ACM buildings underlines the government’s ever-increasing commitment to building safety.
It is also likely to come as a blow to latent defect insurers, who may face a surge in the number of claims made under their policies. The potential for claims will be increased if, as expected, local authorities and Fire and Rescue Services are granted enforcement powers where building owners refuse to apply for funding, or otherwise refuse to remediate their buildings.
Alex Rosenfield is a Senior associate at Fenchurch Law
Building a Safer Future: Regulatory Reform on Combustible Cladding
Following publication of the Hackitt Report in May 2018, the government has been under increasing pressure to implement effective reform of building regulations in the UK, with a focus on cladding systems to high-rise developments. Legislation has recently been introduced aimed at improving fire safety and accountability, with a range of further measures anticipated.
Building (Amendment) Regulations 2018
Regulations came into force on 21 December banning the use of combustible materials in external walls of buildings above 18 metres in height, including residential dwellings, boarding schools, student accommodation, registered care homes and hospitals (SI 2018/1230). The new rules also apply where building work is a "material change of use" that brings an existing building within one of these categories. Commercial buildings, including hotels and offices, are excluded.
The ban does not apply retrospectively to existing structures, including where a building notice or initial notice has been given to, or full plans deposited with, a local authority before the legislation commencement date, provided that building work has already started or starts within two months thereafter.
The press release announcing the ban confirms the government's "full backing" for local authorities to enable them to carry out emergency work on private residential buildings with unsafe cladding, including financial assistance, although local authorities will be expected to recover the costs from building owners. This is not mentioned in the Regulations and seems to indicate support for councils in using their existing powers relating to unsafe buildings, pursuant to the Building Act 1984.
Approved Documents 7 (Materials & Workmanship) and B (Fire Safety)
Regulation 7 of the Building Regulations 2010 requires that materials used in building work are appropriate for the circumstances. A new sub-section 7(2) has been introduced, directing that all materials which become part of an external wall, including “specified attachments” such as balconies and solar panels, achieve European fire safety classification (A2-s1, d0) or (A1), meaning only limited combustibility or non-combustible materials will be permitted. Certain limited components are exempted by regulation 7(3), including gaskets, sealants, windows and any part of a roof.
Approved Document B has been updated to include additional guidance at paragraph 12.6 that insulation products and filler materials used in external walls in buildings of 18 metres or more “should be of limited combustibility or better”. It is no longer permissible therefore to incorporate combustible materials within masonry or concrete walls to new high-rise buildings, such as the Reynobond polyethylene core ACM panels that were used on Grenfell Tower.
Further changes to Approved Document B come into effect on 21 January 2019, clarifying the role of assessments in lieu of testing for cladding and fire safety systems. In accordance with Hackitt recommendations, use of desktop studies should be restricted to appropriate situations backed up with sufficient test evidence, with those undertaking assessments able to demonstrate suitable competence.
The government has launched a wider call for evidence to gather views on (1) more extensive changes to Approved Document B technical requirements, and (2) how residents and landlords can work together to keep their homes and buildings safe. A new Standards Committee is being established to advise on applicable rules, together with a Joint Regulators’ Group to trial proposed legislative changes.
Prescriptive Requirements
The outcomes-based approach to building regulations in the UK puts the onus on companies to operate safely, allowing flexibility and seeking to ensure that emerging risks are addressed without the need for new legislation. However, problems have been highlighted around the lack of clarity in applicable rules, with insufficiently stringent oversight to avoid low standards and damaging conflicts of interest.
Changes to Approved Document B signify a departure from the level of discretion allowed under the previous regime, and moves towards a more prescriptive regulatory framework. The use of combustible materials has not been eliminated entirely though and many commentators believe the proposals do not go far enough. A stricter system of building control applies in some other jurisdictions such as France, Germany and North America, with significantly more emphasis on prescriptive baseline requirements to protect the life safety of building users.
Industry groups are lobbying for the 18 metres requirement to be reduced and the Scottish government has pledged a similar ban for buildings over 11 metres in height, including entertainment and assembly buildings. Related concerns around sprinklers, alarm systems and alternative means of escape in high-rise buildings merit urgent reconsideration as part of integrated reforms.
Future Developments
The second phase of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry is unlikely to start until the end of 2019, according to its chairman Sir Martin Moore-Bick, with some 200,000 documents (including in relation to installation of the cladding and insulation) still to be disclosed. The first phase centred on the night of the incident, and the second will examine wider issues surrounding the fire.
Disputes over remediation of private blocks affected by potentially dangerous cladding materials are ongoing in many cases, exacerbated by complexities in proving clear breaches of applicable building regulations in order to establish liability. Stakeholders in affected properties should consider whether existing insurance, warranties or guarantees can meet the costs of cladding replacement, and seek appropriate advice from policyholder coverage specialists.
Amy Lacey is a partner at Fenchurch Law
The Good, the Bad & the Ugly: 100 cases every policyholder needs to know. #4 (The Good). The Orjula
Welcome to the latest in the series of blogs from Fenchurch Law: 100 cases every policyholder needs to know. An opinionated and practical guide to the most important insurance decisions relating to the London / English insurance markets, all looked at from a pro-policyholder perspective.
Some cases are correctly decided and positive for policyholders. We celebrate those cases as The Good.
Some cases are, in our view, bad for policyholders, wrongly decided, and in need of being overturned. We highlight those decisions as The Bad.
Other cases are bad for policyholders but seem (even to our policyholder-tinted eyes) to be correctly decided. Those are cases that can trip up even the most honest policyholder with the most genuine claim. We put the hazard lights on those cases as The Ugly.
At Fenchurch Law we love the insurance market. But we love policyholders just a little bit more.
#4 (The Good)
Losinjska Plovidba v Transco Overseas Ltd (The Orjula) 14 June 1995
In a useful decision for policyholders under construction all risks insurance, the Commercial Court in The Orjula determined that the spillage of hydrochloric acid onto a vessel requiring decontamination was “damage”, even on the assumption that there was no corrosion. Although decided in the context of a negligence claim, the case opened up the possibility of greater recoveries under policies triggered by damage, demonstrating that even transient or reversible physical changes to insured property should suffice.
The decision
The claimant was a bareboat charterer of a vessel which operated a liner service. Two containers each containing 72 drums of acid were loaded on to the vessel in England, for transportation to Libya. The second defendant, whose application to strike out the claimant’s claim was being determined by the Court, was the physical supplier of the drums to the first defendant, the named shipper in the Bill of Lading.
On its route to Libya the vessel docked in Holland, where one of the containers was discovered to be leaking. On inspection it was found that the drums inside were damaged and required replacement and reloading, with the boat having to be decontaminated and the drums repacked inside the containers.
The Court, in refusing to strike out the claim against the second defendant, held that although it was only necessary to wash the acid off the boat before it could again be in a useable condition, a specialist cleaner had to be employed for this purpose before the vessel could again set sail. As a result, the claimant had suffered actual damage, not pure economic loss (which would not have been recoverable from the second defendant in negligence[1]).
The second defendant’s solicitor argued that there was no physical damage to the vessel. The contamination could be and was cleaned off with a soda solution and the only loss was the financial cost of the operation. The Judge summed up the defence argument as being, in effect, that prior to the cleaning the vessel remained undamaged albeit with a layer of hydrochloric acid over part of her deck or hatch.
Taking guidance from civil and criminal authorities, the Court considered whether there had been “injury impairing value or usefulness” of the property in question, and the need for effort and expense to restore the property to its former usable condition. The Judge rejected the submission that there was no damage, noting:
“Here, specialist contractors were engaged in undertaking the decontamination work using soda to neutralise the acid before washing the deck and hatch covers down with fresh water; further, it is pleaded, perhaps not surprisingly, that the vessel was required to be decontaminated of the hydrochloric acid before she could sail from the special berth to which she had been directed after discovery of the leakage. On these alleged facts, I would have no hesitation in concluding that the vessel should be regarded as having suffered damage by reason of her contamination”.
The alleged contamination of the vessel was held to constitute damage sufficient to enable the claimant to claim in tort against the second defendant for recovery of its loss and mitigation costs arising from negligence in the stowage of the containers.
Comment
In determining that damage was suffered in these circumstances, the Court acknowledged the reality that “injury impairing value or usefulness” (the dictionary definition of damage) can be sustained without there having been a permanent change to the damaged material.
The question of whether damage has occurred is often contentious in CAR insurance claims and this case is helpful in support of improved outcomes for policyholders, subject to expert evidence in appropriate cases and applicable policy wording.
[1] Murphy v Brentwood District Council [1991] 1 AG 398