08-02-2021, 04:44 PM
1
Backbenchers reject !!
Backbench Tories have rejected proposals to set up a loan schemefor the innocent victims of the aftermath of Grenfell to get the cladding removed from their homes?
The only thing lve got against the scheme is the idea that they are
in any way liable for this con trick??
Donkeyman! 👎👎👎
08-02-2021, 04:56 PM
2
Re: Backbenchers reject !!
I think more builders should be made responsible for cladding on purchased houses or flats in particular .If I buy a house or flat it is up to me to do research and due diligence on the property, it wouldn't occur to me to expect other tax payers to foot the bill if there was a problem after purchase .
08-02-2021, 05:08 PM
3
Re: Backbenchers reject !!
I agree to an extent Meg, but the purchasers have no reason to question the safety of construction materials used surely?It seems to me that as long as the builders met the specifications as laid down by Building Regulations then the onus surely must be either on the manufacturers if the product was sub standard, the builders if the installation was faulty, or the local authority (taxpayers) if the Building Regulations specifications were wrong.
In whatever instance the occupiers of these premises are just the innocent victims and should be regarded as such, with the government providing indemnity until such times as the real culprits are brought to book. In truth whether the manufacturer, builder, or local authority are found to be at fault then their indemnity insurance should be invoked, which should cover the majority of the losses.... in theory...
08-02-2021, 05:27 PM
4
Re: Backbenchers reject !!
According to my friend who is a builder, the cladding when it was all installed was never labelled as flammable so nobody knew until Grenfell happened.Hence, the problem of who pays.
My 2c is that the government should pay 80% (or something like that) of the costs to put right the cladding provided its done before a specified date, such as 2023 etc.
That way it will get done, no loans and no builders ripping people off. If its checked by building inspectors and classified as safe before the builders get paid then it should all be good.
We just spend 300 billion on Covid relief, another 1 billion or whatever won't make much difference in the broad scheme of things. At least people will be safe and be able to get on with their lives.
08-02-2021, 05:40 PM
5
Re: Backbenchers reject !!
Originally Posted by Donkeyman
->
Backbench Tories have rejected proposals to set up a loan schemefor the innocent victims of the aftermath of Grenfell to get the cladding removed from their homes?
The only thing lve got against the scheme is the idea that they are
in any way liable for this con trick??
Donkeyman! 👎👎👎
08-02-2021, 06:46 PM
6
Re: Backbenchers reject !!
Originally Posted by Barry
->
I agree to an extent Meg, but the purchasers have no reason to question the safety of construction materials used surely?It seems to me that as long as the builders met the specifications as laid down by Building Regulations then the onus surely must be either on the manufacturers if the product was sub standard, the builders if the installation was faulty, or the local authority (taxpayers) if the Building Regulations specifications were wrong.
In whatever instance the occupiers of these premises are just the innocent victims and should be regarded as such, with the government providing indemnity until such times as the real culprits are brought to book. In truth whether the manufacturer, builder, or local authority are found to be at fault then their indemnity insurance should be invoked, which should cover the majority of the losses.... in theory...
scandal Barry!!
Why it was necessary to go through. a 3yr inquiry l will never know ??
And still no guarantee that justice will be served??
Donkeyman! 👎👎👎
08-02-2021, 06:53 PM
7
Re: Backbenchers reject !!
Originally Posted by Bread
->
According to my friend who is a builder, the cladding when it was all installed was never labelled as flammable so nobody knew until Grenfell happened.Hence, the problem of who pays.
My 2c is that the government should pay 80% (or something like that) of the costs to put right the cladding provided its done before a specified date, such as 2023 etc.
That way it will get done, no loans and no builders ripping people off. If its checked by building inspectors and classified as safe before the builders get paid then it should all be good.
We just spend 300 billion on Covid relief, another 1 billion or whatever won't make much difference in the broad scheme of things. At least people will be safe and be able to get on with their lives.
thoughts cover more options and will protect the tenants more ??
Donkeyman! 👍👍
08-02-2021, 07:00 PM
8
Re: Backbenchers reject !!
Originally Posted by The Artful Todger
->
WHAT con trick?
Trying to lend the tenants the money to get them to agree to pay for
something the are in no way responsible for of course ??
Very sneaky, and the culprits have managed to off load their liability
onto the government to boot!!!
Donkeyman! 🤔🤔
08-02-2021, 07:19 PM
9
Re: Backbenchers reject !!
Originally Posted by Barry
->
I agree to an extent Meg, but the purchasers have no reason to question the safety of construction materials used surely?It seems to me that as long as the builders met the specifications as laid down by Building Regulations then the onus surely must be either on the manufacturers if the product was sub standard, the builders if the installation was faulty, or the local authority (taxpayers) if the Building Regulations specifications were wrong.
In whatever instance the occupiers of these premises are just the innocent victims and should be regarded as such, with the government providing indemnity until such times as the real culprits are brought to book. In truth whether the manufacturer, builder, or local authority are found to be at fault then their indemnity insurance should be invoked, which should cover the majority of the losses.... in theory...
I thought building regulations were very strict , they certainly were here when my son built his house 4 years and every little thing seemed to be was checked and queried.Perhaps private builds are subject to stricter scrutiny that projects carried out by large building companies , if so that shouldn't be the case .
08-02-2021, 09:44 PM
10
Re: Backbenchers reject !!
Originally Posted by Donkeyman
->
Perhaps l should say ATTEMPTED CON trick Todger??Trying to lend the tenants the money to get them to agree to pay for
something the are in no way responsible for of course ??
Very sneaky, and the culprits have managed to off load their liability
onto the government to boot!!!
Donkeyman! 🤔🤔
|
|
