A High Court judge has ruled a landlord responsible for the removal of dangerous cladding, suggesting cladding risks could be brought into the scope of landlords’ obligations.
A High Court judge has ruled a landlord responsible for the removal of dangerous cladding.
In the ruling of Essendi UK Hotels 2 Ltd v London Property Company Ltd, Judge Stephen Davies ruled that building owners must understand any exterior cladding their properties have.
Additionally this means they will be responsible for the removal of dangerous cladding materials.
Here, Davies referred to findings from the London Fire Brigade which found London Property Company had not planned or organised cladding remediation despite being “the landlord and responsible person for the building’s exterior.”
This particular case concerned the Ibis Wembley Hotel, with Davies ruling that the building’s owner - London Property Company Ltd - had breached its lease obligations.
The obligation at hand involved the risk posed by aluminium composite material (ACM), cladding with a polyethylene core, which was deemed to have an “intolerable risk” of fire.
The court has ordered London Property Company Ltd to remove the cladding within six months and to replace it with suitable alternative cladding within 18 months.
Crucially, Davies pointed to landlords’ legal requirement to maintain buildings in “good and substantial repair and condition” as not being limited to visible deterioration.
The court, in this case, found this to include matters where a defect can render a building as unsafe or incapable of lawful use.
This means, when involving potentially dangerous cladding materials, this obligation extends to remediation.
“It is clear in my judgment that the obligation to put and keep the cladding in good and substantial condition has been breached where, as the fire safety experts agree is the case, and as I find, the cladding is comprised of category 3 ACM cladding panels which represent an intolerable fire risk and has the result that the Hotel cannot be kept open and operated safely beyond the short term,” wrote Davies.
This ruling therefore sets a new precedent about cladding risks being brought into scope of landlords’ obligations.
Referring extensively to the Grenfell Tower fire in his ruling, which has brought the issue of cladding remediation into focus, Davies added: “in the post-Grenfell period it ought to be the case that, where there is a multi-storey building providing accommodation in which people live and sleep an obligation entered into – at least post-Grenfell – to put and keep the premises in good condition would include an obligation to remove and replace cladding or to address some other inherent defect which: (a) creates a significant fire safety risk; and (b) requires remediation, both to make the building reasonably safe for occupation and to comply with the obligations imposed on the responsible person under the FSO.”
