The month in brief
Welcome to the December issue of the Technical Update. As this issue goes to press, we have a new government, although not a new PM in Number 10. We await the Queen's Speech to give us a better idea of the policies that will impact on our sector in 2020.
In this issue we take a closer look at the latest developments around combustible cladding, including the launch of the new EWS1 form. For those managing buildings with unsafe cladding, our Topic of the Month looks at the possibility of claiming against building warranties for reinstatement projects.
We also report on new leasehold research from Fixflo and improved figures for affordable housing in England, and offer tips on cyber security and helping staff stay safe at Christmas parties.
This month’s Talking Points focus on major works and training on-site staff to deal with unexpected emergencies and our Defects Database turns its attention to the dangers of under-height balcony railings.
As always, we are keen to hear your news, views and queries and if you have a comment or an opinion to share, why not join the info@irpm.org.uk with title "IRPM Update Idea - FAO Marketing"
And finally, the team at the IRPM wish all our members a very happy Christmas and a peaceful, prosperous New Year.
IRPM News
CEO’s column | Annual seminar 2020 – early bird tickets on sale now!
In the News
Revised cladding form EWS1 is launched | Affordable housing delivery up by 22% in England | Call to arms for contractors to ‘wake up’ to zero carbon target
Leasehold / block management
‘Protection board’ to ensure safety of ACM-clad blocks | Leasehold market intelligence from Fixflo | Dangerous cladding not removed from private blocks despite December deadline
PRS and B2R
Moda Living expands B2R offer in Leeds and Edinburgh
Social Housing
Housing associations call for clarity on combustibles guidance
Scotland and Wales
New fire safety guidance for Scottish high-rise owners and residents | New renting regulations for Wales
What’s new in HR?
Don’t take the festive celebrations too far
Fire safety
Fire safety body calls for total combustibles ban | A new fire and safety regime | RIBA: sprinklers cannot replace other safety measures
Health & safety / Risk management
Three things you can do today to make your business (and yourself) more secure
Legal update
Mark Loveday looks at this month’s key cases
Talking points
What’s the recipe for the perfect major works project? | Could your on-site staff cope in an emergency?
Topic of the month
Cladding concerns? Check your building warranty
Defects database
What to do about under-height railings
IRPM events
What is happening, when and where?
What’s new on the Resource Hub?
Building reinstatement valuations |communal satellite installations
IRPM News
Will Santa bring you new toys this Christmas?
Andrew Bulmer looks at new technology, safety and Section 21
Amid the traditional trappings of Christmas, most of us like a bit of something new, techy and novel. It certainly seems IRPM professionals do. IRPM's member survey shouts loud and clear that members are excited by new technology, with 93% of members believing technology will have a positive effect on the customer experience. A whopping 84% of members feel technology can be used to improve site safety. IRPM's Tech Insight Programme will be looking hard at where new technology will take our profession in the next few years and how professionals can best take advantage of what is coming down the track. Stand by...
Can't do a monthly update without mentioning cladding and building safety. A cross-industry stakeholder group including IRPM, RICS, UKFinance and ARMA among many others have signed off on a new EWS1 form. This is the one that building owners/managers can get completed by the appropriate expert, confirming the wall system of a building is satisfactory, so that lenders can lend. It has become a bit complicated and there are challenges getting this form completed, as many buildings will still need a survey/assessment of some kind to achieve sign off. And a new form won't remediate unsafe buildings of course. Full details within this month's Technical Update, below.
As we go to press, the word is that new PM Boris Johnson will continue the policy of removing s21 (no-fault possession of shorthold tenancies). The objections of landlords are well rehearsed but the reason I mention it, is that this government is signalling popular policies rather than protecting the status quo. We will soon know whether the RoPA reforms, regulating and qualifying residential agents including property managers, will similarly be picked up as an 'oven-ready' offering to protect consumers.
It has been a lively year. IRPM membership continues to grow strongly as industry continues its flight to quality. I have been bowled over by the incredibly positive response that IRPM professionals have shown to building and life safety, demonstrating a determination to do 'the right thing' wherever possible in the face of challenging circumstances. Building safety has taken centre stage in 2019 and I predict it will do so again for much of next year. There will be progress and light at the end of the tunnel but there is much to do.
And finally, don't forget to book your Early Bird ticket for the great IRPM Annual Seminar 2020, on the 21st May, at the fantastic QEII Conference Centre opposite the Houses of Parliament and Westminster Abbey. Scroll down for details.
May your budgets and end-of-year accounts balance, your emergency calls over the holiday be few and your customers happy. They are being managed by the sector's Gold Standard professionals. Happy holidays and a healthy, happy and prosperous new year to you all!!!
Andrew Bulmer is CEO of the IRPM
Annual Seminar 2020 – early bird tickets on sale now!
Early Bird tickets are now available for next year’s IRPM Annual Seminar, to be held on 21 May 2020. We will be back at the Queen Elizabeth II (QEII) Centre in Westminster and members can buy tickets at a discounted rate of £99 until 31 January 2020. From 1 February 2020 the member’s rate will increase to £129.
The 2019 Annual Seminar was the biggest leasehold / build-to-rent event of the year, selling out six weeks in advance. More than 760 people registered to attend and there were 80 disappointed members on the waiting list. So don’t miss out this time round - join us at what will be the the No1 property management event in 2020.
Non-members are also welcome to secure their place by purchasing a non-member ticket which is £275. Book early to avoid disappointment and we look forward to seeing you there.
In the news
Revised cladding form EWS1 is launched
Building managers can now use a new edition of the form designed to record what assessment has been carried out for the external wall construction of residential apartment buildings of 18m and over, or buildings where a specific concern exists.
The new form, a co-operative effort of numerous stakeholders including IRPM, contains a big change. In bold text at the top of the new form, there are words telling lenders and buyers that they cannot rely on this form. Only the building owner/manager can.
However, the likelihood is that lenders will rely on it anyway. If a fire risk assessor signs a form saying the external wall system (cladding, insulation, membranes, fixings, etc.) is checked and safe, that assessor is providing an opinion to the building owner and under the law of tort, that assessor could end up liable to any third party who relies on the report. This could add up to potentially hundreds of lenders and buyers. Already, the risk of doing numerous EWS assessments has caused assessors indemnity insurance premiums to skyrocket, or even be withdrawn altogether. If the assessors can’t get PI insurance, buildings can’t be assessed and the whole sales process stalls. We are already seeing sales falling through as valuers zero-value flats in buildings with suspect or unknown wall systems. The new form means it’s up to mortgage lenders to decide if they want to risk relying on a report and lend anyway.
Also new is the ability for the assessor to choose either Option A or Option B. Option A is where external wall materials are unlikely to support combustion, Option B is where combustible materials are present in the external wall.
For Option A, a suitable professional (undefined) with expertise to comment on materials and construction can complete the form. For Option B, the person signing the form should be a member of a relevant professional body that deals with fire safety in the built environment. This could be a Chartered Engineer with the Institution of Fire Engineers or equivalent.
Whichever option is used, a physical and likely invasive inspection will be almost always be required. A desktop exercise will not be sufficient. The report says the investigation must include evidence of the fire performance of the actual materials installed. For both Options A and B this would often include either a physical inspection by the signatory to this form, or inspection of photographic or similar information gathered by a 3rd party (subject to the signatory having sufficient confidence in that 3rd party). It would also include the standards of construction of key fire safety installations such as cavity barriers. Given the nature of external walls this would typically involve investigations in a limited number of locations (actual number to be determined by the signatory). Review of design drawings may assist but on their own would not be sufficient. If the wall construction includes multiple wall types, the investigation should include each type.
This form should help safe buildings to be recorded in a way that will free up mortgage lending and get people moving again. However, what the form will not do is remediate unsafe buildings and dealing with that is the biggest challenge coming our way in 2020. Presently, we are hearing that most buildings fail their inspections. That is certainly the experience of Housing Associations who are surveying all their buildings and the private sector is gaining more experience of the same results every week.
Action point: IRPM needs you! We need to hear of your experiences using the old form, the new form and the results of invasive surveys you are carrying out on buildings both above and below the 18m threshold. The true extent of mortgage lock and of buildings failing invasive inspections for fire risk assessments is not known. We need data to go back to government to explain the extent of the problem, so we can make the case for greater support for leaseholders who are left with expensive repairs to buildings they bought in good faith. Please share your experiences in confidence with IRPM CEO Andrew Bulmer via info@irpm.org.uk
Affordable housing delivery up by 22% in England
Affordable housing delivery in England is on an upward trend according to the latest annual government figures. With 57,485 affordable homes delivered in England in 2018-19, this equates to an increase of 22% on the previous year.
Every year since 2015-2016, England has seen an increase in the delivery of affordable homes and there have also have been changes in the tenure profile over time. Up to 2011-2012, social rent was the most common affordable housing tenure for new homes. However, since the introduction in 2011-2012 of affordable rent, this type of tenure has since become the most common. This change has been largely driven by the 2011-2015 and 2016-2021 affordable homes programme which funded affordable rent.
Call to arms for contractors to ‘wake up’ to zero carbon target
The National Federation of Builders has published a new report titled Transforming Construction for a Low Carbon Future, which urges building contractors to “wake up” and help the construction industry meet the UK’s 2050 zero carbon target.
The NFB describes its 32-page report as a “call to arms” to the industry, which produces 10% of the UK’s carbon emissions. The sector also “directly influences” 47% of emissions via infrastructure and building maintenance works, the report says.
Recommendations include a demand for a new version or overhaul of the current certification scheme on retrofitting houses with carbon-saving technology. Under current targets, all rented properties must have an EPC rating of C by 2030 and 80% of all homes need to have a C rating by 2035.
The NFB says this will require high-quality installation skills allied to a technical education. It believes the Government will have to support this investment and encourage take-up, otherwise it will not happen.
Mark Wakeford, chair of the NFB’s major contractors group said: “There are no excuses: government, contractors, the supply chain, manufacturers, designers and the trades must all embrace the challenge now...”
Leasehold / block management
‘Protection board’ to ensure safety of ACM-clad blocks
The government has set up a ‘protection board’ to give residents peace of mind that blocks with ACM cladding are safe while they wait for remediation work (source: Inside Housing)
The new body, led by the National Fire Chiefs Council, has taken responsibility for the safety of all 318 buildings around the UK that still have dangerous, potentially combustible cladding installed. The board also comprises representatives from the Home Office, the MHCLG and the Local Government Association and has the power to “provide expert, tailored building checks and inspections.
The aim is to have in place an official body to ask “assurance questions” to check that any risks are managed and that a strategy is in place in each building in case of fire.
Leasehold market intelligence from Fixflo
New research from Fixflo is required reading for block managers, setting out issues of concern and the current direction of travel for the sector. The Leasehold and Block Management Market Report has found that although most block management companies have achieved portfolio growth, they are struggling to translate that increase in revenue and workload into increased profits.
The report also examines:
- Views on the regulation of managing agents
- The key short-term concerns identified by block management companies
- The extent to which firms have broken into the fast-growing Build to Rent sector
The Report, which is supported by ARMA, MRI Software, News On The Block and Flat Living, received responses from more than 170 block management companies. According to ARMA figures, this equates to about one-fifth of the block management market.
You can download the full report for free.
Dangerous cladding not removed from private blocks despite December deadline
The latest building safety programme figures from MHCLG reveal that a total of 67 private blocks with potentially dangerous cladding still have no remediation plan in place. This is in spite of the government’s enforcement deadline at the end of December.
In England there are 318 high-rise residential buildings still fully or partially covered in ACM cladding. Of these, 169 private residential blocks have yet to have their cladding removed, while 98 blocks in the social sector are still clad with ACM panels. The figures show that 66 landlords have an “intent to remediate but are developing plans” and one block has “unclear remediation plans”.
In the private sector, 25 blocks have made a start on remediation, 77 have a plan in place and 66 have reported their intention to carry out works but have no plan in place.
The government deadline for completion of all remediation work on private residential buildings is June 2020 and for social housing blocks it is the end of this year. However, according to a report in Inside Housing, of the 86 blocks eligible for help from the government’s £200m cladding fund, not one block has had applications for full costs approved, with only one having support for a pre-contract approved.
PRS and B2R
Moda Living expands B2R in Leeds and Edinburgh
B2R developer and operator Moda Living has announced work has started on site at New York Square in Leeds. New York Square forms part of the £300m SOYO Leeds project that’s helping to regenerate Quarry Hill, transforming a former car park into a multi-purpose neighbourhood that includes a hotel, public squares and amenities as well as new homes.
New York Square will be home to 515 B2R apartments across two C-shaped 16-storey blocks. Additional services within the new apartments will include 24-hour hotel-style concierge and round-the-clock professional management included in the rent with no deposits and no fees.
The bespoke MyModa app will enable residents to report maintenance issues, communicate with the concierge, book events, and even act as their apartment key.
Further north, in Edinburgh, Moda Living has secured planning permission for the final phase of its £215m Springside development in Edinburgh.
At Block E, a six-storey building will include 139 high quality apartments designed exclusively for rent, ranging from studios to three-beds in size with ground floor amenity space including a lounge and co-working space.
In total, Springside will provide 476 homes with 13,000 sq. ft. of internal amenities, including communal lounges, health and wellbeing facilities plus roof terraces and a private dining room with views of Edinburgh Castle, as well as fully managed communal gardens.
Social Housing
Housing associations call for clarity on combustibles guidance
Social housing landlords have called on the government to provide clarity on its advice around combustible materials on high-rise buildings. As with the private sector, housing associations are also raising the issue because their residents too have been left unable to sell or re-mortgage their homes due to cladding issues.
The National Housing Federation (NHF) has urged the government to “provide clarity”, while G15 chair Helen Evans said the government needed to “unstick the process” and explore funding the works. Lord Kerslake, chair of Peabody, called for the government’s 22 advice notes to be consolidated into a single document. Private house builders have also raised concerns about the impact the ad-vice may have on the mortgage market and housing sector.
Scotland and Wales
New fire safety guidance for Scottish high-rise owners and residents
New fire safety guidance has been published in Scotland, aiming to highlight the risks for owners and residents of high-rise buildings and prevent a major tragedy.
Building owners – including councils, housing associations and private landlords – have been issued with their own guidance which gives advice on preventing and reducing the risk of fire in high-rise blocks. The seven-chapter document includes information on assessing risk and a reminder of the multiple laws on fire safety.
The guidance, produced by the Scottish government and Scottish Fire and Rescue Service (SFRS), is not mandatory. It comes after Scotland introduced a law in October which means that all new buildings taller than 11 metres must be fitted with cladding that slows and controls the spread of fire.
Residents in high-rise buildings in Scotland are being given separate leaflets – which reinforce the stay-put policy for blocks of flats - stating what residents should do if there is a fire and how to prevent one starting.
New renting regulations for Wales
The Renting Homes (Fees etc) (Wales) Act 2019, comes into force on 13 December and provides for the regulation of holding deposits among other issues. Schedule 2, para.11 of the 2019 Act provides that the Welsh Ministers may specify information which must be provided by any landlord/agent who takes a holding deposit from a prospective tenant.
These regulations prescribe 12 pieces of information that must be provided including the amount of the deposit; the address to which it relates; and the contract details of the landlord and agent.
What’s new in HR?
Don’t take the festive celebrations too far
Tina Chander offers a timely reminder to employers to be aware of staff wellbeing during the festive season
As we enter the final few months of 2019, our attention will soon turn to the end of year celebrations, with businesses making plans for their Christmas parties.
For most of us this is something to look forward to, as it gives colleagues the chance to celebrate another busy and successful year with some casual drinks in a relaxed social environment.
However, fuelled by a few drinks too many, the excitement can quickly spill over, so without wanting to be a spoilsport, it’s worth reminding both senior management and staff that the Christmas party is essentially an extension of the workplace and the same rules and expectations apply.
The potential problems
Although the party may take place outside of the workplace and normal office hours, there remains the risk that an employer will be liable for the actions of its staff. Unfortunately, consuming high volumes of alcohol can be the catalyst for serious legal issues, with incidents of discrimination or harassment not unheard of.
Protect your organisation
If there are any existing workplace tensions, then excessive drinking can strain these further, as inebriated individuals decide to raise issues that are bothering them. In some cases, this can escalate into a verbal or physical confrontation.
This type of unacceptable behaviour could lead to claims for potentially unlimited compensation, not to mention the significant amount of time and effort senior management must invest into the subsequent investigation and disciplinary process.
If the back-to-work-blues weren’t already bad enough in January, these anxieties can be enhanced when employment lawyers are called to deal with an incident from the Christmas party.
There are several steps that organisations should follow to avoid becoming that client:
- When employees can bring partners, be sure not to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation and don’t assume all partners will be of the opposite sex;
- Don’t leave anybody out – every member of staff should be invited to the Christmas party, regardless of whether they are ill or on leave, as not doing so could result in claims of discrimination;
- Consider limiting the bar tab. Providing limitless amounts of alcohol to employees, without monitoring who is drinking what is not only irresponsible, it can also increase the likelihood of a serious issue occurring;
- Consider appointing a senior, responsible employee to stay sober, monitor behaviour and step in if necessary.
Avoid the post-party dread…
A lot of the major legal issues faced after a work Christmas party can be easily avoided – the vast majority stem from bad choices made by an organisation and its employees. In some serious cases, these drunken actions can result in a claim being brought against the company or person involved, so it’s important to remind people of their responsibilities beforehand.
Tina Chander is a partner and head of the Employment Team at law firm, Wright Hassall.
Fire safety
Fire safety body calls for total combustibles ban
Following the huge blaze at the Cube in Bolton in November, a leading fire safety body has called on the government to extend its combustible materials ban to all buildings and not just high rise blocks (source: Inside Housing).
The student block that caught fire is shorter than the 18m threshold for high rises and the Fire Protection Association (FPA) said the incident “provides a stark reminder that the problem facing UK fire safety is the result of many issues and not just Grenfell-style aluminium composite material cladding”.
The FPA said that as two people were injured in the fire, it “must be classed as a near-miss event”. The building’s HPL cladding “clearly played a huge part in the fire’s progress” and that thorough investigations into HPL “have been hampered by it not being the focus of a major incident – until now” the FPA added.
“Clearly, we should not limit regulations to the mere height of a building,” the FPA argued, calling for the combustibles ban to be based on risk rather than simply height. The body is also calling for mandatory “high-integrity” fire alarms, which are more resistant to false alarms; two means of escape from high rises; sprinklers in “high-risk” environments; and for stay put policies “to be used only after thorough intrusive inspection to the building to ensure it is capable of supporting it”.
A new fire and safety regime
Post-Grenfell, a new fire and building safety regime for high-risk buildings is taking shape. It will represent a marked departure from the existing regime and introduce significant duties for anyone responsible for managing residential buildings that are at least 18 metres high.
In a new series of articles, property risk consultants Tetra Consulting will explore each of the main elements of the proposed regime. Future issues of the Technical Update will look in detail at:
- the proposed safety case requirement that the government describes as “a fundamental change in approach” and that underpins the “whole building” approach of the new regime;
- the new position of an ‘accountable person’, who will be responsible for complying with the safety case and other conditions set in a building safety certificate issued by a new building safety regulator;
- the role of the new building safety manager, who will support the accountable person;
- a far stronger voice for residents; and
- proposals to strengthen the enforcement of the new regime alongside tougher sanctions.
Following the Grenfell Tower fire on 14 June 2017, in which 72 people lost their lives, the government set up a public inquiry, chaired by retired Court of Appeal judge, Sir Martin Moore-Bick. The inquiry published its phase 1 report on 30 October 2019, looking at what occurred on the night of the fire. Phase two, which commences in 2020, will focus on the “circumstances and causes” of the fire.
Alongside the public inquiry, the government commissioned an independent review of the Building Regulations and fire safety led by Dame Judith Hackitt, a former chair of the Health and Safety Executive. The government accepted all 53 of Hackitt’s recommendations in December 2018, consulting on their implementation this summer in a document, Building a safer future: proposal for the reform of the building safety regulatory system, which proposed a new regime for residential buildings of 18 metres or more.
The government is now analysing the responses, alongside those to a parallel call for evidence on whether the principal legislation governing fire safety – the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 – remains fit for purpose given the changes proposed in BaSF.
The need for a safety case
Underpinning the proposed new regime would be a requirement for a safety case that the Building Safety Regulator must approve before issuing a building safety certificate.
Dutyholders will have to consider the effectiveness of how they manage fire and structural risks throughout a building’s lifecycle (planning, construction, completion, occupation, maintenance, refurbishment and demolition). The duty, which will pass from the client during construction to an accountable person throughout occupation, is part of “the golden thread of building information” that the government hopes will enable “the person inheriting the risk to understand how the building operates, what layers of protection exist and what needs to be done”. (The accountable person will be the subject of our next briefing but, in short, will be the individual or body that has control of the building. In most cases, this will be the freeholder or head lessee, or a management company.)
Although there are risk assessment duties under the current Fire Safety Order 2005, the government accepts that the existing system lacks “a regulatory driver and mechanism”. Under the proposed regime, the regulator must be satisfied that the safety case has identified the fire and structural hazards and assessed the risks, and that an appropriate safety management system and mitigation is in place. The regulator will be able to require changes to and, if necessary reject, the safety case.
The safety case for a new building will need to include:
- a comprehensive description of the building and the preventive measures and protective systems;
- an understanding of the life-critical risks (for fire and structural safety) and evidence as to how they will be proactively and proportionally managed for safe occupation;
- mandatory occurrence reporting;
- evidence of emergency preparedness, continuous improvement and compliance with legislation, standards and policies; and
- reference to documents such as a resident engagement strategy, a fire and emergency file, and structural or fire safety inspections.
The accountable person must review the safety case every five years (more frequently should there be reasons to do so). The review must demonstrate how fire and structural risks are managed on an ongoing basis given that safety critical measures will “naturally degrade over time”. The building safety regulator will consider the review as part of its renewal of the building safety registration certificate.
Although a safety case for new buildings will contain much of the information needed to manage a building once it is occupied, the government accepts that the production of a full safety case could be “more complex” for many existing building because the information might be limited, absent or difficult or expensive to obtain. The regulator will therefore be allowed to demand less information for an existing building, subject to a sufficient explanation from the accountable person and evidence of the mitigation that has been put in place.
The government accepts that the evidence in a safety case is “potentially vast”, but believes that the principles of existing management systems may form a reasonable basis for compiling a safety case. Such systems include the Health and Safety Executive’s Managing for health and safety (HSG65). An accountable person may also “think it proportionate to undertake an intrusive survey as a first step to build an accurate record to support the safety case”. This might involve destructive inspection and testing, such as a Type 4 fire risk assessment.
In the next issue. Tetra will look in detail at the role of the ‘accountable person’.
RIBA: sprinklers cannot replace other safety measures
The Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) has responded to the Ministry of Housing, Community and Local Government's (MHCLG) consultation on sprinklers in new high-rise flats, saying sprinklers alone cannot replace other essential fire safety measures.
While RIBA supports the use of sprinklers in high-rise flats as they are a highly effective means of life protection, the architect's body maintains that they 'should not be used as a means to compensate for other essential life safety measures or justify reducing minimum standards.
Jane Duncan, chair of the RIBA Expert Advisory Group for Fire Safety, said, “It is over two years since the Grenfell Tower tragedy, yet far too little has changed. England’s regulations lag shamefully behind other countries such as Wales (where sprinklers have been required in all new and converted residential buildings since 2013) and Scotland (where sprinklers will soon be required in all multiple occupancy residential buildings). The next government must urgently and radically overhaul the building regulations to prevent more disasters and keep the public safe.”
As well as sprinklers, RIBA says centrally addressable fire alarm systems should be required in new and converted multiple occupancy residential buildings.
Health and safety / risk management
Three things you can do today to make your business (and yourself) more secure
Gwilym Lewis has some helpful tips for keeping yourself and your staff safe online
Security can be intimidating. It can be frustrating. For many people, it feels as if security is something they just don’t have time for, or don’t even begin to understand.
But here’s some good news: Security doesn’t have to be hard. In fact, if you do these three simple things today, your chances of falling victim to a hacker will be drastically reduced.
Choose Better Passwords
“Cracking” bad passwords is one of the easiest ways for a hacker to gain access to your accounts and data. So if there’s anything you’d like to keep to yourself — your Internet banking accounts, for instance — choosing better passwords should be your top priority.
Most people’s passwords are bad. Generally, they make two mistakes:
- Choosing very simple passwords (e.g., pet names) or commonly used passwords (e.g., Password123).
- Reusing the same password for lots of accounts.
To make yourself more secure, pick a unique password for each account that’s easy to remember, but hard for a hacker to guess or crack.
Note the words easy to remember. A random string of characters won’t do the job — you’ll forget it. Instead, choose a long, memorable passphrase. Edward Snowden’s favourite example is MargaretThatcheris110%SEXY. Definitely memorable!
Switch on Automatic Updates
People imagine hackers as faceless, hooded figures sat in a dark basement, typing furiously through the night.
In reality, most cyber attacks aren’t sophisticated, and most hackers aren’t very skilled. They use pre-made hacking tools that are easily found online, which exploit known vulnerabilities in common software products.
So the second action step in your journey to better security is nice and simple: Just turn on automatic updates for all of your mobile devices, computers, laptops, and tablets. For most devices, this function is easily found in the Settings menu.
Once on, new versions of applications will automatically be installed as soon as they become available. And if you’re ever prompted to accept updates… accept them.
Trust nobody
That’s an exaggeration – obviously - but most people are much too trusting of things they find online.
Most cyber attacks exploit the trust people place on online content. Email, websites, adverts, social media, and even dating services are all commonly used to conduct cyber attacks.
So the third commandment for online security is simple: Don’t inherently trust things you find on the Internet, and never give away personal information unless you can be absolutely sure it’s going to a person or service your trust.
Put simply, if something seems dodgy or too good to be true, it probably is.
Gwilym Lewis is a founder of Appsecco
Go to the Resource Hub for more from Appsecco.
Legal update
When is a flat, not a flat?
Mark Loveday looks at a recent case that provides a useful definition for legal purposes
The recent case of Aldford House FH v Grosvenor [2019] EWCA Civ 1848, was heard in the Court of Appeal in November. A group of leaseholders claimed the freehold of a large block of flats in London’s Park Lane, under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. The freeholder and head lessee challenged their right to do so. The issue turned on whether several newly constructed units on top of the building were (at the relevant date) “constructed or adapted for use for the purposes of a dwelling”, and therefore met the definition of a “flat” set out in s.101(1) of the 1993 Act. At the date of claim, the flats were uninhabitable. The shells had been built, but there were no services and the flats had not been fitted out.
In the High Court, Fancourt J held that whether premises are a “flat” depends on whether they were constructed or adapted for use for the purposes of a dwelling. The test was not whether the premises were fitted out so they could actually be used for living in. He held the units which were not completed or decorated could still be “flats” for the purposes of enfranchisement legislation.
However, the Court of Appeal decided the test applied by the High Court was wrong. “A separate set of premises is not a flat (as defined) unless at some stage in its history it has reached a stage of construction to be suitable for use for the purposes of a dwelling”. As none of the relevant units had reached that stage by the date of the claim, they were not yet “flats” for the purposes of the 1993 Act.
Why is this case important?
Although there have been five House of Lords/Supreme Court decisions about whether premises are a “house” for the purposes of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, there is little authority on what constitutes a “flat” for the purposes of the Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 s.101 (or other legislation). Essentially, a “flat” means something capable of being used as a dwelling. A half-built flat is not a “flat”. The High Court decision (reversed by the Court of Appeal) was listed in the January 2019 IRPM Update.
Other must-read cases
Urwick v Pickard [2019] UKUT 0365 (LC). The FTT appointed a manager for a block of flats under s.24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, and ordered the landlord to “register this Order against its freehold estate”. The landlord failed to register the restriction on the register of freehold title. The Upper Tribunal held that the Management Order was effectively discharged when the freehold was sold and that new freeholders was not bound by the Management Order.
Mark Loveday is a leading Barrister with Tanfield Chambers specialising in leasehold management and enfranchisement work
Correction: An eagle-eyed reader spotted an error in last month's Legal column. We apologise for any confusion the article may have caused. This has now been corrected, so please follow this link to read the updated version.
Talking points
What’s the recipe for the perfect major works project?
Andrew Banister sets out the key ingredients for block managers
A successful major works project clearly relies heavily on the building surveyor, but your role as the property manager (with the support of your accounts department) is key to a successful outcome. It’s your job to ensure that communication with all stakeholders is fluid; the section 20 notices are correctly served; that the necessary funds are raised/chased in advance of the works starting on site; that you are paying the contractor correctly as per the surveyor’s valuation certificates; and that you’re ensuring the cost of the works are fully accounted for as the works progress and in the year-end certified service charge accounts. Make sure the major works contractor is set up on your systems so they can be paid. The surveyor’s job is to vet them.
The fees that you charge for your admin role ought to reflect the extra time you need to put in, for instance, for site visits with the surveyor and client, and to ensure you are up to speed with how the planned maintenance programme needs to be updated post major works.
The recipe for the perfect major works project in part relies on you not overstepping your mark. Your role is vital, but it is by and large limited to admin and communication tasks. Do discuss with the surveyor at an early stage what he/she can do to take some of your burden away – perhaps doing some of the written communication directly with the client and leaseholders or attending key residents’ meetings.
After the project is over, there is the defects rectification period to see through (typically six months or year after practical completion). The surveyor will take care of that but there will be a retention sum to pay to the contractor.
Andrew Banister MRICS, is Regional Director North at Earl Kendrick Associates
Read the full article on this topic, outlining the key stages of any major works project and how they should be overseen and administered.
Could your on-site staff cope in an emergency?
On-site staff provider Cledor, talks property managers through the ways they can help on-site staff be prepared for the worst
What is considered an emergency to a resident may not be defined as one to a property manager. Someone getting locked out of their flat needs to be dealt with, but this is unlikely to be classed as an emergency situation.
Here is a non-exhaustive list of what property managers may consider to be a genuine emergency on site:
• Fire
• Severe escape of water
• Lift entrapment
• Someone being taken seriously ill
• The death of a resident
• A terrorist incident
• An intruder/thief in the building
• Domestic violence
If you are managing a block with on-site staff, what would they do if something on this list occurred? Call you? Call the emergency services? Panic?
While property managers are, with any luck, trained to deal with crises at the blocks of flats they manage, it’s the on-site staff who are at the business end of things. So how can we ensure that our staff are prepared should the worse happen? Training, prevention and being prepared are key to dealing with any crisis situation.
Training
Practical training, not just sit-in front-of-a-white-board training. If someone is trapped in a lift, what do you do? Can you communicate with them? Are they unwell? Can they wait for the lift engineer to attend? Should the fire brigade be called?
- Bespoke on-site training, specific to the site itself, its layout, unique features, etc
- Role playing, to act out – realistically – potential emergencies.
- Understanding the fire strategy for the building – stay-put/evacuate, and how to tackle recent (fair and unfair) criticism of stay-put policies.
- Prevention and mitigation
- Vigilance – noticing something out of the ordinary before a crisis has taken hold, regularly reminding residents to be vigilant themselves.
- Keeping escape routes clear.
- Spotting and reporting maintenance issues with sensors, fire doors, CCTV, alarms, lighting – including how to interpret complex fire alarm panels. Checking the lift phone line works.
- Ensuring servicing of equipment takes place and follow ups.
Reminding residents to check their plumbing. - Being proactive in reporting issues to the managing agent – suspicious/anti-social behaviour, flammables in flats or car parks, elderly/vulnerable residents living alone.
Preparedness and action
- Knowing the building/development inside and out, including location of exits.
- Knowing what to check if there is an indication of an emergency.
- Knowing if vulnerable people are in the building and if applicable, contact details of their care network.
- Being ready to execute an evacuation of the building and how best to help those disabled or vulnerable.
- Taking charge of an emergency, being ready to communicate clearly and concisely with the emergency services.
- Practicing alerting all residents and owners of an emergency, by using the IT/portal systems provided.
- Having keys to the flats and emergency contact details for all residents.
- Checking the supply of hi-vis jackets and that torches have sufficient charge.
Click here for
Topic of the month
Cladding concerns? Check your building warranty
Dorian Lawrence reveals the full extent of the cladding problems now being exposed by façade testing and urges property managers to check their warranties before it’s too late
Since the Grenfell tower fire in 2017, issues around the potential combustibility of cladding have been high on the property management agenda. With resident safety taking centre stage, façade surveys and testing have been carried out on hundreds of buildings. But, despite the government’s £200m fund announced earlier this year, the question of who pays for the investigations - and any remedial work required - remains, in many cases, unresolved.
At FR Consultants, we regularly survey examples of external wall installations that don’t meet the manufacturer’s recommendations. Since the combustibility conversation began more than two years ago, we have been approached by hundreds of building owners and managers concerned about the safety of their buildings. The focus has widened to include other combustible products as fears over the safety of HPL cladding are added to existing ACM concerns.
During our investigations, we have been disturbed to uncover regular instances of workmanship carried out to a negligent or ineffective standard. The most common examples include fire barriers omitted in the required areas or their incorrect installation without closing cavities effectively; cladding panels at high level with missing fixings; or structural rails relying on friction rather than fixings to keep them in place.
While building regulations are detailed and complex documents, their recommendations are underpinned by mandatory clauses which are legally binding. The main clause relating to external wall systems is this one:
Building Regulation B4(1) “The external walls of the building shall adequately resist the spread of fire over the walls and from one building to another, having regard to the height, use and position of the building.”
Notice there is no mention of 18m as a cut-off point for this regulation to apply.
This was highlighted when, following a recent fire in a building below 18m high and partially clad in ACM panels, the fire brigade quoted this clause. So while height is a consideration, a building doesn’t have to measure a specific height for the clause to apply.
This is also the case when considering fire risk relating to balconies. The Government’s expert panel confirms in Advice Note 21 (relating to balconies on residential buildings) that: “Approved Document B paragraph 12.5 also sets out that “The external envelope of a building should not provide a medium for fire spread if it is likely to be a risk to health or safety.” It then goes on to say: “The department’s view, endorsed by the expert panel, is that these provisions apply to buildings regardless of height”
In the past, there were four ways to prove compliance with the building regulations. These were:
- Approved Document B – Section 12, Clauses 12.5 – 12.9. These are considered ‘advisory clauses’ which create a ‘rebuttable presumption’.
- Desktop Study - no longer recognised following the findings of the Hackitt Report commissioned post-Grenfell.
- Full Fire Engineered Solution Report - also not generally relied on by the courts due to the lack of test data included.
- BS8414-2 Test – this is now the only remaining, fully recognised means of ensuring compliance, but tests must exactly replicate the installed system.
Post-Grenfell, it became clear that the product classification on swathes of cladding across the country was wrong and the government commissioned testing on ACM to establish its potential combustibility. The results were damning and the Government followed up by issuing Advice Notes to building owners and managers to ensure they had their cladding tested while addressing the system as a whole, including the type of insulation used and whether or not fire barriers are correctly installed.
If a building does not comply and many developers cannot prove that they do, there are often grounds for a claim against the building warranty, where one exists. However, the claim must be made within the period covered by the warranty. So if the building you manage is relatively new, it is imperative that you check the expiry date of your building warranty!
Warranties often last for ten to twelve years, although some are shorter. They run from the date of completion of the construction and can be claimed on in the event of the discovery of combustible materials or instances of poor workmanship.
It is important to note that even if your claim is filed just one day after the expiry date, the building will not be covered with the target of cost recovery moving on to the contractor who installed the system. Unfortunately, many of these companies will have ceased to exist since completion of the building. This makes recourse more difficult or impossible, leaving leaseholders with a potentially sizeable bill to bring their building up to a compliant and safe standard - which managing agents and freeholders, as the responsible persons, must ensure.
Therefore, we would strongly urge managing agents and freeholders to thoroughly check the wording of their building warranty policies and instruct intrusive façade reports if there is any doubt over the materials used and/or their construction. Warranties are put in place specifically to deal with claims of this type in order to protect building owners and residents from incurring hefty costs due to improper workmanship. They should be utilised in full!
All government Advice Notes relating to façade safety can be viewed and downloaded here.
Dorian Lawrence MCIOB is the Managing Director of Façade Remedial Consultants Limited.
Defects database
Railings: how low can you go?
Matt De Bono looks for solutions to the problem of low railings on balconies
The UK, and specifically London, is home to a large number of historic buildings. Many of these buildings feature balconies on the front elevation, and occasionally the rear too, typically with wrought iron railings. While these are visually appealing, they can pose a health and safety issue as many of the balustrades/railings are too low. Some balustrades can be as low as half a metre (500mm) but many fall within 800mm-950mm (0.8m-0.95m).
For interior balconies or mezzanine floors the balustrade height is only required by law to be 900mm (0.9m). However, as soon as we step outside onto a balcony or terrace, the legislation set by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) rules that the minimum height of a balustrade must be no less than 1100mm (1.1m). The height is to be measured from the point you are able to stand (the datum) to the top of the handrail.
So if you are managing a building where the railings are too low, what should you do? There are a number of solutions depending on the specific scenario. For a building that is not situated within a conservation area or where planning permission is not required to change the external appearance of a building, the solution can be as easy as replacing or modifying the balustrade. Always use a qualified specialist so that you can be sure the installation is compliant with current building regulations and the HSE guidelines.
However, for those buildings within conservation areas, as many of London’s building are, the options are a little different and call for consideration of the lease. This is because it is very unlikely that the local authority will grant permission to alter the physical appearance of the building.
Many balconies will be demised to (owned by) the freeholder within the terms of the lease, even if the balcony is only accessible via a single dwelling. In this case, our advice to the freeholder or property manager would be to prohibit usage of the balcony by the leaseholder or tenants and issue a formal written statement of explanation.
If, on the other hand, the balcony is deemed as belonging to the leaseholder, then our advice to the freeholder, property manager and also the leaseholder where the property is being rented, would be to issue a formal written warning to the residents raising the issue. This should be followed up to ensure they are fully aware and understand the situation and the risks involved, as well as documenting the fact that the correct advice has been given regarding use of the balcony or terrace ie only to use where necessary and with caution.
Matt De Bono is a building surveyor with Earl Kendrick
IRPM Events
Go to the Events page for more information
03 February 2020: Associate Exam Preparatory Workshop - London
04 February 2020: Associate Exam Preparatory Workshop - London
06 February 2020: Associate Exam Preparatory Workshop - Manchester
04 March 2020: Associate Exam - London & Manchester
17 March 2020: Associate Exam - Glasgow
21 May 2020: Annual Seminar 2020
What’s new on the Resource Hub?
Reinstatement insurance: How much would it cost to rebuild your block?
An assessment based on average prices doesn’t offer the detail required to get it right, warns Zoe Davenport from Barrett Corp Harrington
Blocks of flats are commonly underinsured. Often, this doesn’t become obvious until a claim is made against the buildings insurance policy. At that point it may become all-too clear that the policy won’t pay out the amount expected and leaseholders may be asked to foot an unexpected – and potentially costly – bill.
As a result, it is vital to have blocks revalued on a regular basis, rather than relying on average rates or on the market value of the property – which bears little relation to reinstatement cost. It is rare that two blocks of flats look the same externally and almost impossible for the internal lay out and finishes to be the same. So why would they be valued identically using average rates?
Download this article about the common factors that differentiate blocks of flats and influence the sum insured.
Communal Satellite Installations
Earl Kendrick has compiled a list of questions each managing agent should be asking to steer their residents and get to grips with what is achievable. Building surveyor Mazhar Farid urges block managers to bear in mind that any system may be operational for 20 to 25 years, so investing a little time to get it right is best done before engaging a contractor.
