Greenwich leaseholders in cladding dispute with Barratt Homes

The issue has left residents with ‘crippling’ service charge bills and fears that they are unable to sell their flats.

The concerns follow the seventh anniversary of the Grenfell Tower fire earlier this year.

The complex consists of eight blocks up to 14 storeys tall and was built in 2002 by Barratt Developments. Steve Day, 43, moved into Royal Artillery Quays (RAQ) as a leaseholder in 2016.

The resident said his concerns on the fire safety of his block began around five years ago when the London Fire Brigade flagged several matters which were required to be resolved, including fire compartmentation and other preventative measures. This led to £1.3 million being spent by Barratt on internal compartmentation works for flats, as well installing fire wardens to constantly patrol the estate.

Mr Day said: “That’s what we’ve been living with and because of that and other breaches, we’ve had 24/7 fire wardens. These are people that stare at your building 24/7 looking for a fire. You can imagine what effect that has on the mental health of your neighbours.”

An email from September 2021 sent by Saint-Gobain, manufacturer of the cladding used on RAQ, to Mr Day seen by the LDRS appears to state the manufacturers found insufficient fixings were being used in one of the blocks in the complex after an investigation it carried out. Saint-Gobain’s investigation also found the adhesive used to fix the insulation in the building was not applied as recommended, with the render finish also being found to be less than half the thickness specified.

Mr Day said: “In this development we have shown beyond all doubt that Barratt put our lives at risk for 22 years. We got the cladding manufacturer to come and do an intrusive investigation and condemn the work… [The fire breaks] are meant to be affixed to the walls with a metal fixing. This block is using plastic fixings and we know how plastic performs under a flame, you can try it out at home.”

These contributing factors meant that fixings in the building were reportedly not fitted in accordance to Saint-Gobain’s specification. A November 2020 report from Capital property consultants on the cladding at RAQ also found the existing external cladding on the building did not comply with the manufacturer’s installation requirements or building regulations at the time of construction. This was partially attributed to the lack of metal pins being present to fix fire barriers in the building, as well as findings suggesting that spandrel panels on the building contained combustible insulation.

The report suggested replacing the external cladding system as well as the spandrel panels on the building to achieve a fire safety rating of at least A2. However, a letter sent to RAQ residents by Barratt in December 2020 claimed that the developer disagreed with many of the conclusions reached in the Capital report. The letter added that the company’s consultants felt that the building may still be safe for occupation without the need to remove its external cladding.

Another letter from Barratt dated from March 2021 said that exploratory works done by the developer itself confirmed no mechanical fixings were present for the fire barriers in the block. The company claimed in the letter that it did not believe such findings had any adverse material effect on the safety of residents.

A Barratt spokesperson told the LDRS that all letters issued by the company before January 2022 were based on superseded assessments and are not reflective of the developer’s current approach to building safety remediation. They claimed this was due to the fire risk assessment process that was introduced by the British Standards Institute, representing the government prescribed approach to high-rise building remediation works.

A fire risk assessment report from July 2022 by Urban Change confirmed many of the findings made during Saint-Gobain’s assessment, including plastic washers being used instead of steel ones. They found RAQ blocks were at high risk or rapid fire spread due to their external wall construction and the blocks were given a rating of B2.

The report said: “The fire risk associated with external fire spread at the RAQ blocks is high because of poor workmanship in the installation of [the external wall insulation system] and the use of combustible insulation within spandrel and infill panels.”

However, the report claimed the spandrel panels on the builds were of ‘limited concern’ despite containing combustible insulation, given the panel surfaces were non-combustible. It was suggested that the external cladding on all blocks should be replaced, but that only panels in specified areas of blocks such as beside fire escapes should be removed.

Mr Day has claimed he and other RAQ residents feel that the report from Urban Change should have determined the manufacturer and fire performance of the buildings’ panels before stating they did not need to be fully replaced. He claimed the legislation that Barratt is basing its report on requires developers to increase its inspection of buildings when details of wall composition cannot be determined.

A letter sent to Mr Day by Barratt in June this year that was seen by the LDRS claimed it would be inappropriate for Barratt to change its approach to remediation works at RAQ as a result of pressure from leaseholders. They added that it would set a precedent across the developer’s portfolio of forcing ‘unnecessary and potentially very disruptive’ remediation work on thousands of residents.

Mr Day said: “They are now proposing to leave flammable material on homes. You have no justification for doing so. You need to go the extra mile, question the risk and take all flammable material off our homes and commit to doing so… If they’ve got proven wrongdoing where they have put their customers’ lives at risk for 22 years, then they need to set a precedent for that.”

Barratt told residents in March of this year that the remedial works set out in the Urban Change report would begin in July 2024 and be completed by summer 2026. However, residents have claimed the works have still not started yet. Balaji Manickam, 43, bought his flat at RAQ in 2016 with his partner Germana Bacchini, 37. The couple said that aside from the fire safety issues, they are worried about how excessive scaffolding during the works could affect their flat’s exposure to sunlight.

Ms Bacchini said: “We have two small children. If you block the sun out completely, we will be in darkness 24/7. They are not engaging with us, they are not answering us and this adds up on top of the lack of safety… That’s not how you live. There are people living with their fire bags ready.”

The couple said Barratt has acted with ‘zero transparency or empathy’ to residents. Ms Bacchini said she has had ‘permanent anxiety’ which she claimed has not been helped by heat alarms in the building intermittently going off due to electrical faults.

She said: “It rang for two hours at 3am in our building… No one came. No one knew what to do. The night concierge didn’t know how to switch it off.”

Mr Manickan added: “We have so many families here so it’s also a concern of safety. Since they have made a mistake, they should take responsibility and fix it.”

Barratt confirmed that the works it has planned to carry out on RAQ would give the development a B1 fire safety rating. However, a letter from professional estate agent body Propertymark to the Government in May this year cited concerns that a growing number of insurance companies were refusing to insure buildings with a standard less than A2. The body also stated there was a risk that management companies would be forced to pass increased insurance costs on to leaseholders.

A service charge bill from managing company Rendall & Rittner seen by the LDRS for a resident living in RAQ dated from February 2018 showed an annual charge of £3,312. This annual charge for the same resident was quoted at £5,121 for an invoice dated from July this year. Stefan Malcolm, 42, has owned his property in RAQ as a leaseholder since 2008.

Mr Malcolm said communication with Rendall & Rittner has always been strained for residents. He added that he and many other residents often struggle to pay their ‘crippling’ service charge bills, which they feel is linked to the unsafe cladding on the building.

The leaseholder told the LDRS: “It was a massive increase in comparison to what it began at, and I’m a single parent so to have to pay out that amount of money and look after your child and maintain a normal standard of living is hard. I’m self-employed as well so it’s even harder.”

A Barratt spokesperson told the LDRS that remedial works for RAQ had been paused due to delays in its application to the Building Safety Regulator. Mr Malcolm said he would like to see Barratt extend the scope of the works to address the concerns of residents, and that leaseholders will not stop campaigning until they have been satisfied.

He said: “I find the whole situation very depressing. I think it’s completely unfair. Obviously, it’s unsafe as well. You’re not even able to sell the property, we’re just in complete limbo. We don’t know what we can do. Barratt is just completely in control of the situation and there’s not anything we can do… It probably could be reflected quite positively in the community if they were to just do the work.”

A Barratt Developments PLC spokesperson told the LDRS that removing all the spandrel panels in RAQ would not result in the buildings achieving an A1 or A2 fire safety rating. However, they added that they were working with a fire engineer to review the residents’ request to be told the composition and fire safety of the development’s external panels.

They said: “As founding signatories to the Building Safety Charter, we have always been clear we will carry out any necessary remediation at historic buildings at no cost to leaseholders. Any remediation will be carried out in line with a PAS 9980 Fire Risk Assessment undertaken by a qualified fire engineer, and approved by the Building Safety Regulator, as prescribed by the government as part of the Developer Remediation Contract we signed in March last year.”

They added: “At Royal Artillery Quays, we are currently awaiting approval from the BSR and are well placed to begin mobilising for a start on site as soon as this is received.”

A Rendall & Rittner spokesperson told the LDRS that the company’s main focus as property manager was the safety of all residents. They said they had consulted with the London Fire Brigade, who they claimed were satisfied with the building safety strategy and mitigation measures at RAQ,

The spokesperson said: “We have worked hard to ensure that, where possible, costs associated with fire safety measures have been mitigated. Costs for the Waking Watch [fire wardens] were met by the developer, and the installation of the Fire Alarm system was funded by the Government’s Waking Watch Relief Fund. Fire alarms are regularly serviced, and our fully trained on-site team investigates any activations.”

They added: “We engage regularly with residents at Royal Artillery Quays and provide frequent updates via the resident portal. In addition, we recently organised a resident’s update meeting with the developer Barratt Homes and subsequently provided further information from an independent expert to the resident portal.

“Whilst we always endeavour to keep service charges as reasonable as possible, external factors beyond our control have led to increasing costs nationwide. Most recently, we have seen new requirements brought in by the Building Safety Act, which coupled with rising energy prices, have meant that services charges have had to increase.”