Now I am thoroughly, very much for finding an alternative to dumping the costs of build defects and cladding remediation on leaseholders of existing buildings, but I find this slightly odd. https://twitter.com/libdemlords/status/1328766204484444161

All the Fire Safety Bill does is to make clear that the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 applies to a multi-residential building’s structure, external walls and common parts, and any door between dwellings and common parts. This is a necessary thing.

And it doesn’t add any *extra* liabilities on leaseholders, unlike the Draft Building Safety Bill. Now while the Fire Safety Act may well catch build defects like missing fire stopping and cladding issues, it isn’t just about things like that.

The amendment bans passing on of costs of *any* remedial work attributable to the Act. But that would also include routine maintenance - replacing worn out communal fire doors, or safety lighting system on the fritz, or out of date fire extinguishers, for example.

Not being able to pass on the costs of routine fire safety maintenance strikes me as - to be honest - a bit daft and wholly counterproductive, because obviously, it won’t get done. (And that includes in buildings where freehold owned by leaseholders).

The purpose of the amendment is obviously a statement of principle and intent - and that is fine - but as drafted and passed, it is not very good law. But then, I suspect the chances of it surviving the Commons (for reasons both good and bad) are fairly close to nil.