Housing (Cladding Remediation) (Scotland) Bill

The Bill will be unable to deliver quick, cost effective remediation due to a number of factors including:
Does not acknowledge shortage of fire engineers with sufficient, knowledge training and experience to undertake single building assessments.
Does not acknowledge limited number of fire engineering companies willing to undertake works due to insurance costs and conditions.

The concept is sound but detail is all-important. Will mainly be determined by what is required for a single building assessment.
The definition at Section 25 of the Bill states:
(b) assesses, and culminates in a report on—
(i) any risk to human life that is (directly or indirectly) created or exacerbated
by the building’s external wall cladding system,

What is meant by 'any risk to human life', is this in relation to fire, to structure, to wind and water tight. Any risk is also a very wide definition, for example a surveyor may consider as the external wall panels are classed as non-combustible they will satisfy this definition, while a fire engineer may note that the panels are aluminium and while noncombustible, due to low melting point, will fail in a fire, with the potential for fire to leap floors and for the panels to fall from the building. Both failures could be regarded as posing a risk to life.
Does this mean that poorly fitted, though perfectly functional, or damaged would be seen as a risk. In buildings there will always be risk it needs to be considered within normal expectations.

Scotland is regarded as a small part of the UK by mortgage lenders and insurers. The Fire Industry Association has set up a register for EWS1 forms assessed in accordance with the PAS9980 methodology. This is accepted UK wide by mortgage lenders and insurers. It seems unnecessary and potentially confusing to try and set up an alternative.

What has been the response from the Building Societies Association or the UK Finance.

Is the expectation that the register and single building assessment will be updated when any works relating to fire safety are undertaken to the building?
Who will be responsible for making sure the register is kept up to date for a specific building?
How long will the single building assessment be valid for?
If the single building assessment is reviewed say every 5 years (as per EWS1) and this assessment has a different outcome how will this be addressed?
How long will buildings be required to be maintained on the register?
Who will be allowed access to the register?

I can imagine this could be very problematic with social housing, where residents may be dealing with other matters that they would consider more pressing and have no wish to engage with the landlord or factor to resolve cladding matters.

From experience many of the issues with external wall cladding can be subjective. Third party reviews or a single building assessment undertaken by another registered party may come to a different conclusion regarding the risk to life of the residents from the external wall cladding. It would
It would be beneficial if there was a review process before having to go to a sheriff.

It would depend whether it is limited to non-compliant work as regarded at time of design. If the developer designed and constructed a building that complied and was signed-off by building control even if the building had combustible external wall cladding then such remediation costs should not sit with the developer.

A Single Building Assessment will consider the risk based on todays regulations and guidance, and allocate a risk accordingly, for example the recent change in the trigger height for what is regarded a high risk building being reduced from 18m to 11m. This would mean buildings between this height would no longer comply. Is the intention to make such buildings come up to modern requirements or to label such buildings a higher risk even though they fully complied when designed and constructed?

If a developer refuses to make good a building which they designed and constructed and which did not meet the building regulations at the time, then it may be considered proportionate. This decision should however, be considered by an expert panel with option for appeal to Sheriff.

It would appear disproportionate however, if it was applied without consideration of the financial stability of the developer. It would not be considered reasonable if it forced otherwise stable company into receivership making their employees unemployed.

Reference should be made that the Scottish Ministers may issue guidance documents for the purpose of providing practical guidance, and the need for compliance.
Information should be provided as to how remediated work is to be signed-off and by whom.
Information should be provided as to how costs will be recovered from owners who can not be found.

The Act notes that the works required will be those needed to 'eliminate or mitigate risks to human
life'. As the single building assessment will in all likelihood identify other defects that may not be regarded as a risk to human life, it should be made clear that it is only works to remove the risk to life that should be undertaken under the Act. It may be beneficial if the Act noted that the defects which may be specified in a defective building notice are defects which require rectification in order to bring the building into a reasonable state of repair having regard to its age, type and location, to prevent excessive unnecessary works getting undertaken.

It should be highlighted that no costs will fall to the residents.

The Act should allow for such buildings to be enacted at a later date, subject to research into the risks to life of external cladding systems on such buildings.