Waking watch costs passed on to leaseholders despite developer signing government’s remediation contract

Inside Housing has been told that a number of the leaseholders of flats at Zinc Court have “low-value leases”, which should mean that no costs can be passed on including for interim measures.

Paul Lovell, a leaseholder in one of the flats, said: “We feel like our life is on hold as we can’t plan anything based on what costs we are going to be lumbered with next. 

“To wake up to an email a few days before Christmas to say we are now funding a waking watch initially consisting of three members of staff employed 24 hours a day is unacceptable. Why are all options not looked into before putting these costs back to the leaseholder? 

“Initial costs of the waking watch accounted for around £200 a month per flat, on top of a service charge that has recently increased to almost £3,000 a year. It’s totally unsustainable in relation to the cost of flats in the building and so many leaseholders are looking at severe financial hardship due to these rising costs.”

The government’s building safety remediation contract, first published in January 2023, commits developers to pay for “life-critical fire safety” remediation work on blocks they built that are taller than 11 metres regardless of whether they still own them.

Vistry will not cover the waking watch costs because they are excluded under an agreement it signed with the government. Inside Housing has seen correspondence from government officials that confirms this is the case.

Inside Housing understands that Vistry has now agreed to fund the interim alarms, although this has delayed the installation and extended the time the waking watch must be in place.

Vistry said: “I can confirm that under the terms of the developer remediation contract, the developer [Vistry] is not responsible for costs relating to interim fire safety measures such as waking watch.

“I can, however, confirm that although Vistry/Countryside are not responsible, we have agreed to fund the installation of which will negate the on-going need for waking watch. Monies were paid and installation commenced recently.

“We have liaised with MHCLG [Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government] on this issue and they are satisfied with our input of funding.”

Manchester Residential Management has declined to comment despite multiple requests for a response. Inside Housing understands that the firm has since applied to the taxpayer-funded Waking Watch Replacement Fund (WWRF).

The government announced an extension to the WWRF last month, which aims to support the installation of a common alarm system, replacing waking watch measures in all residential buildings where it is currently in place in England, regardless of where the costs of this fall. 

However, the WWRF does not pay for waking watch costs and these must be paid by leaseholders even if the building is under the government’s developer contract.

The lengthy process of applying to the WWRF, which can take months for quotes to be gathered, and receiving approval for funding usually means that the money paid by leaseholders for the waking watch exceeds the cost of an alarm. 

For its part, the government maintains that watch costs should not be being passed on to leaseholders.

It insists that its amendments to the Building Safety Act (under the Leasehold Freehold Reform Act) include measures to ensure costs for waking watches or simultaneous evacuation alarms are not being passed on.

This amendment clarifies that in addition to remediation works, relevant steps or interim measures towards remediation can be included in remediation orders and remediation contribution orders under Sections 123 and 124 of the Building Safety Act 2022.

A remediation contribution order is a new legal power that can force responsible parties to pay for the repair of fire safety defects and costs incurred during the remediation.

These can include recovery costs that a party has incurred through remediation works being carried out, either directly or through a service charge, or temporary accommodation costs for decanted residents.

However, this use of this order so far has seen interested parties caught up in expensive and lengthy legal disputes.

In March this year, the government intervened in a legal battle over an £18m cladding bill that the owner of London’s Olympic Park received last year.