Nobel House FAQs

Nobel House Residents Q&As 18.10.21

Below are the weekly questions on the Nobel House cladding issue, including responses to specific questions that residents posed. 

Questions for Y&Y 

Q1: With regard to the BSF application, please can you expand upon “the portal” to which you refer? As far as we are aware, the BSF is closed and Y&Y failed to express an interest with regard to Nobel House in 2020 (when required to do so). Are we now expected to believe that an application to the BSF is in progress? If so, please provide screen shots from “the portal”.

A: At present we are working on the ACM cladding removal claim. This claim is not being made via the portal but direct with MHCLG and Homes England. We are waiting for the Building Safety Fund to reopen and we will then be able to process the Non ACM claim. We have explained previously that Y&Y did express an interest.

BSF Queries

Q2: We understand this is split into two claims, one for the ACM cladding via the Private Sector ACM Cladding Remediation Fund and one for the rest of the works via the Building Safety Fund. Is this correct that the two are being claimed from separate funds? Are the government treating them as separate?

A: Yes, there are two sperate funds. ACM and Non ACM. The portal is combined however they are two separate funds.

Q3: Has any formal acceptance of claim been made by government in respect of the ACM fund? 

A: No. This is currently being assessed by Cushman and Wakfield and the legal team for Homes England. 

Follow up question for next week: What date have they given you for a firm answer on this? Have you got evidence in writing (in case of fire and subsequent enquiries) of your efforts to speed them up? Have you specifically pointed out to them that MHCLG themselves have expressed serious safety concerns about a delay to the ACM works? If not, could you please pass this on?

Q4: Has any value of funding been indicated?

A: No. 

Q5: When is work expected to commence to remove the ACM from the stairwell? This is an urgent H&S concern as it is on a fire escape route. 

A: As soon as we are able to proceed. We are looking at January 2022

Q6: How long is this work expected to take once it begins? For the safety of all occupiers of the block, this must be progressed as soon as possible. 

A: Four months.

Q7: Can we get agreement from government to start works whilst they review the funding position as we understand they have communicated that the removal of this must be a priority?

A: We are looking to do so. 

Follow up question for next week: Can you provide more clarity on the reason behind the delay? What communication has been held on this matter on what dates, as above? Have they specifically said that you cannot proceed without the funding confirmation or is it that Y&Y has decided not to forward-fund this? If you were to press ahead with works before the government funding comes through, you had confirmed in the past that you could take out a loan from Avon to do so. Have the funders said they won’t fund if the work has been completed already?

Q8: Have you had any more specific indication of when the BSF is expected to re-open?

A: We are advised the Govemnent are going to be announcing an update after the 28th of this month. 

Q9: Is the application ready to be submitted as soon as it opens?

A: Yes.

Q10. Has the Government agreed to cover any costs duplicated by treating the items separately?

A: No. 

Follow up question for next week: Have you asked for this specifically? The only reason we may incur duplicate costs on scaffold etc for the removal of ACM and non-ACM cladding, is because of the government’s delay in making the new fund available. Even once the fund is announced there will almost certainly be long delays before release of funds as it took 6m+ last time.

Capital Queries

Q11: Are all submissions/applications to Government up to date?

A: Yes. 

Q12: Are sub-contractors appointed to undertake all work once funding is agreed?

A: The contractors who submitted quotations for the works will need to book this in for a start date however yes, all is in place to move ahead. 

Q13: If not, please give details
A:

NHBC Queries

Q14: Please provide a copy of the claim form and supporting documents submitted.
A: 

Q15: Has the list of heads of claim been agreed and submitted?

A: This is all under review with the NHBC. 

Q16: What is the latest update in terms of the NHBC response around expiry dates of policies and the notification date of the claim?

A: This is all under review with the NHBC.

Follow up question for next week: What date has NHBC agreed to give you a response by? Have you asked for this specifically and if so what do they say? Do they have all the information they need now?

Hollybrook Claim

Q17: This has been nothing further to report for some time, what are the next steps to be taken to pursue this? The wall survey indicates they did not follow regulations at the time and must be held accountable for this failure.

A: The company is dissolved therefore there is no one to take responsibility for this. There is no legal basis to make a claim against one of their sister companies. 

L5 Alarm System

Q18: Was full funding on this received from government i.e. covering 100% of the cost or is there anything outstanding in respect of either the installation or the funding for this item?

A: All has been installed with the Waking Watch Relief Fund coverning all the costs of the installation.
 

Nobel House Residents Q&As 16.08.21

Below are the weekly questions on the Nobel House cladding issue. Notes from Raven or 4QM are in italics.

Questions for Y&Y

(General)

Q1: The ACM needs to be taken off urgently. From what I understand from your email to Jonathan you wish to wait for confirmation of grant funding before acting. Considering Joe Murphy’s emphasis on the need for swift action, and the obvious risk to life, have you received confirmation from the funder that we need to wait? It seems more likely from what he said in his email that the position would be that you are required to take action now and then the funder to fund us retrospectively? Please can you confirm what the funder has said?

A: We are aware the ACM needs to be removed as a priority. The issue is we want to ensure that the funds are in place. We have been in touch with the MHCLG, latest email was sent earlier today (10th August) requesting how we can move this ahead. I am aware that since we have all the specifications in place and are ready to begin on works, it will hopefully be a lot more straight forward. Mr Murphy was copied in to the correspondence and is aware of the current position. Again to be clear, we would like our request for funding to be accepted before proceeding with the works to save leaseholders having to fund the works.

Q2: The cost of the works as quoted has risen from £6m to £14m. To what extent do you believe this to be due to cost increases over time with the increasing pressure on the market and shortage of suppliers/contractors now that the first tranche of BSF works are underway, and whether this is therefore likely to continue to increase?

A: We cannot comment on costs rising. We are aware that costs for cladding are exorbitantly high. I am aware however that the BSF will investigate all costs to ensure they are not overpriced before providing funding.

Q3: Have Y&Y instructed Capital about remediation of the ACM situation as per Joe Murphy's email from MHCLG on 23 July?

A: Capital have included in the works schedule the removal of the ACM. This is all included in the renumeration works.

Q4: Have Y&Y sent the results of the ACM tests to Capital?

A: Yes. We have done so.

Q5: Have Y&Y instructed Capital to revise the schedule to replace ACM before anything else?

A: We have not yet as we are awaiting confirmation on  the status of the MHCLG (government) funding before incurring any further costs. We feel it is not feasible for leaseholders to make further payments for works at this stage and therefore would like to have the funding in place prior. If 4Qm feel that this is not the case, please do advise and we can move ahead right away.

Raven clarification: We are seeking information from MHCLG about the expectations and best way to proceed before asking 4QM to issue instructions. Aaron was invited to meet with the funders but is about to go off on two weeks’ leave. Due to the urgency of this, 4QM has offered to meet with them in Aaron’s absence and is currently trying to arrange a meeting for the earliest possible time. Aaron also provided us with a contact for a substitute and holiday cover.

Q6: Have Y&Y instructed the LA about the ACM situation as per Joe Murphy's email from MHCLG on 23 July?

A: Yes. 4QM were copied into the correspondence.

Invoicing of leaseholders

Q7: Please confirm leaseholders will not be billed for ACM remediation since the government funder made very clear in an email on 13.8.21 that payment of costs is either “through up-front funding from the building owner or MA which is then reimbursed via the funding, or through pre-tender support to facilitate the early stages of the project – leaseholders should not be bearing the costs.”

A: The aim to ensure that leaseholders do not need to pay out at all, even in advance for the ACM remedial works. This is why we are pursuing the funding before carrying out any further works.

Q8: Have leaseholders now been invoiced for all the pre-Contract costs (except WW) that need paying before BSF funding is secured? If not, please advise.

A: All invoices have been sent out and I am aware that 4QM have given the go ahead to leaseholders on making these payments which are now coming in.

Raven clarification: We are awaiting the final two invoices from Y&Y. We caveated payment of those we did receive as follows. “I am authorising payment of these to facilitate payment to the contractors, it is not an acceptance of liability for these costs and Raven will consider its position as to whether or not these charges should be formally disputed in due course.”

Payment of contractors

Raven clarification: Y&Y have not yet paid the cladding, waking watch and fire alarm suppliers and payments to the cladding consultant/contractor are already two weeks overdue. However, on Friday 13th August Aaron did confirm that Lawtech would be paid Monday (16th August) and that payment for the remaining suppliers would be made by Friday (20th August). We have left in the questions below however as they give useful context to how payments will be handled for the future.

Q9: We note that payment to all the cladding-related contractors has been delayed, and is over 2 weeks late for Capital and Lawtech.  It is not the fault of the suppliers or the leaseholders that you failed to issue invoices against estimates in advance of work, so clearly you need to pay now upfront. If Y&Y cannot afford this, then you did assure us previously that Avon was in a position to forward fund. It is not reasonable to charge interest as the delay in collection is due to your failure to issue timely estimates, and the rate that you propose (4%) is unreasonable in any case given the current market and that Avon would be able to borrow against property even if they did not have the reserves that you assured us would be available.

A: Y&Y issued invoices as instructed by 4QM, our clients. This was delayed on their end asking leaseholders to hold off on funds which were signed off in the first place. We carry out what is required by our client. We can confirm that payment will be made to Capital by the end of this week and Lawtech will be paid Monday (16th August).

4QM clarification: 4QM would like to clarify that we do not get involved in invoicing decisions as this is Y&Y’s responsibility and we’re in no way responsible for a delay in sending out invoices. Many invoices, though dated 15th July, weren't received until a week or more later. Only once the invoices were received, did we simply ask Y&Y for clarification of what was being invoiced. Any forward-funding has to come from Avon as building owner. We pressed to ensure that suppliers were paid on time.

Q10: Capital and Lawtech should have been paid by now. Has this been done? See (7) below.  N.B. 4QM have advised all 4QM owners by email and Facebook to pay promptly to enable Y&Y to have funds to pay contractors but I understand some leaseholders have still not received invoices.

A: Funds have not been paid out yet. The service charge has not had enough funds to pay out. I am aware this week a payment will be made to settle the costs for one of the two invoices due. We will make the remainder payment to capital in the next 10-14 days. If needed at this stage a loan will be requested from the freeholder.

Q11: Government advice is for Freeholders to pay contractors in a timely manner before charging leaseholders, to ensure leaseholders are not left paying the bills. 
Please confirm Avon Ground Rents (London) Ltd. will take responsibility for paying contractors bills before being reimbursed via the service charge(s), as is normal.

A: As above. The freeholder will be asked to provide a loan for the remainder of the costs due. 

Q12: What's happening about the balance of Lawtech pre-Contract costs?  Can we assume this will now be paid by the BSF once funds are approved?

A: All costs for Lawtech and Capital are being paid out. These are the amounts that were billed out as part of the core construction works.

Nobel House Residents Q&As 12.07.21

Below are the weekly questions on the Nobel House cladding issue, including responses in red to specific questions that residents posed.

Questions for Y&Y

(From Luke)

Q1: In the last weekly update, it said “Capital have submitted by the deadline required for the BSF. This is all in readiness for the fund’s approval”. This does not seem correct. Capital can’t submit anything to the BSF as we have not been registered, as widely acknowledged. Please can Y&Y clarify this point immediately. What have Capital submitted and to whom? Please provide evidence.

A: TO BE CARRIED OVER TO NEXT WEEK’S QUESTIONS

Q2: Please provide a copy of the submission and any additional materials Capital have now delivered.

A: TO BE CARRIED OVER TO NEXT WEEK’S QUESTIONS

Q3: Have Y&Y addressed all the points in Crispin’s letter? Can they provide evidence of completion?

A: TO BE CARRIED OVER TO NEXT WEEK’S QUESTIONS

(From Raven)

Q4: Does Avon/Y&Y have the ability/liquidity to press ahead with safety works now or do you need to wait for the receipt of funding before beginning work?  The government spoke of releasing new grant funding in the Autumn. So Avon/Y&Y would get their money back when that funding comes through.

A: Ultimately, the service charge will need to collect funds in order to cover the works. The freeholder may potentially loan to the service charge over a small period of time however it would depend on the amount and to what timeframe. Y&Y would not be able to do so as the management firm.

Q4a: Are you planning any interest charges or fees on this loan?

A: I have not taken instruction however there is 4% simple interest in the lease and therefore likely if there is a loan taken that would be the case. Again, we would like to avoid this and await funding or at least understand how much is being funded. We can then allow leaseholders to manage their finances.

Q5: When do you therefore plan to commission the work to proceed?

A: We would look to commission works when we are clear on what will be covered.

Q5a: Do you mean when we are clear on what will be covered by the grants? With luck we may get confirmation from Joe Murphy once we have the ACM results but I’m not overly optimistic. If not then the scenario would be that the next grant round is released in autumn, and we won’t find out whether we get grant until maybe December so would not start the work until next year. Issues with that:

  • The original report stated work to be complete by March 2022 for safety reasons.
  • It’s quite likely that the prices would have changed again by then.
  • The ACM cladding will likely get funded and need removal earlier so there is a risk this may end up causing extra cost due to duplication of scaffolding.

In that scenario, would Avon fund it and press ahead to ensure safety and efficiency?

A: Correct. I would have to take instruction on Avon loaning funds. Whilst the delay is not the best option, the L5 alarm is in place which provides safety on the block at present. This may also be the only option possible. 

 

Q6: What do you envisage doing regarding billing residents while awaiting grant confirmation?

A: We have already billed out for the WW and the works carried out so far. These are obviously a fraction of the cost and are for the design and build etc. We would like to think that most of this would be recoverable in time.

Q7: And please could you also confirm when we expect to hear back from the ACM testing?

A:  We are awaiting the response which we hope will come in at some point this week.

(From 4QM)

Q8: Assurance that ACM test results will be sent immediately to the BSF.

A: TO BE CARRIED OVER TO NEXT WEEK’S QUESTIONS

Q9: That Y&Y will press for early application to the autumn BSF tranche of funding.

A: TO BE CARRIED OVER TO NEXT WEEK’S QUESTIONS

Q10: That 4QM and Raven are now always copied in to any and all correspondence to (or forwarded immediately from) Capital, BSF and NHBC, as well as any other related suppliers with regard to the cladding/fire safety issues.

A: TO BE CARRIED OVER TO NEXT WEEK’S QUESTIONS

Question for Capital

Q11: Is the fire engineer happy with their proposed programme (complete by March 2024 instead of March 2022).

A: Now that we understand the full extent of the defects to be remediated and the remediation design proposals, we are of the professional opinion that the current programme is reasonable in the circumstances. It is worth noting that the fire risk will be reducing as we progress through the scheme and the Fire Service will be engaged in the process. As such, there is low enforcement risk associated with the proposed programme.

Q12: In contrast to the budget estimate of £5.9m, the costs now appear to be:

  • Contractor costs of £9.7m (incl prelims, contingencies etc, but excl VAT and consultant fees), 
  • Consultant fees of £1.65m,
  • VAT of £2.3m and 
  • Client legal/party wall/licencing costs of £54k.  
  • TOTAL = £13.7m

I note that the cost consultant still appears to be challenging the provisional sums, so this may reduce slightly, but generally states that costs are reasonable. However, I wondered if you have any comment on why it is so different from the costs you were given at the time of first enquiry only a few months prior?

A: The original budget was very high level and was undertaken before Lawtech had the opportunity to really understand what was required, particularly around the build up’s to each of the wall types and the logistics and sequencing to delivery the scheme. As this is a funding scheme where we have one opportunity to apply for money and we’ve only had a very short design period (typically this would take 6-8 months to flesh out as opposed to weeks) we’ve had to make certain allowances to beef up costs to make sure we’re building in contingencies. This results in slightly higher costs, which will be challenged in the site phase, but ensures we don’t have to go back to the BSF asking for more money. We’ve also had to future proof some of the material rates, as costs are spiralling in construction industry as a result of Brexit/COVID and a very buoyant cladding market.

 

Nobel House Residents Q&As 28.06.21

Below are the weekly questions on the Nobel House cladding issue, including responses in red to specific questions that residents posed.

Questions for Y&Y

Q1: Please can Y&Y provide dates, evidence AND cost for ALL fire safety equipment inspections and servicing in the last three years, including Sprinklers, Fire Extinguishers, common alarm system, and any other relevant fire safety checks.

A: This is all attached.

Q2: Confirmation of the date of extension agreed with Capital to complete this phase?

A: I will ask Capital for their advice on this point.

NOTE: There was no extension agreed. Capital will complete their work by 30th June. We will therefore be ready to submit if/when we are permitted to by the BSF.

Q3: Have you heard anything further from the BSF?

A: We are still awaiting a response to the appeal. We have not heard anty further form them directly.

 

Nobel House Residents Q&As 21.06.21

Below are the weekly questions on the Nobel House cladding issue, including responses in red to specific questions that residents posed.

Questions for Y&Y

Q1: Please can Y&Y provide dates, evidence AND cost for ALL fire safety equipment inspections and servicing in the last three years, including Sprinklers, Fire Extinguishers, common alarm system, and any other relevant fire safety checks.

A: This is all attached.

PLEASE NOTE: nothing was attached and we have requested that Y&Y forward the attachments.

Q2: Have the building insurers been fully informed of the report findings, risks and costs? And has the full report been sent to them? What was their feedback?

A:  We have informed the insurers who are aware of the current situation.

Q3 We are trying to estimate how much the works and surveys etc might cost per flat on average across all the flats. While I appreciate that it will vary by individual, please could you confirm the approximate average split that will affect residents in the flats, taking account of the contribution that the commercial units (Coop, Sports Direct etc) pay?

A: This is not possible as it will depend on the percentage each leaseholder pays. It will be as per your service charge apportion. This is worked out on an individual leasehold basis.

Q4: Our estimate from known costs of survey, mitigation and remediation is below – is this likely to be accurate?

  • Original Capital survey = £55,588 (+VAT)
  • Cladding and other remedial works: Consultants, not just Capital, £0.6m (+VAT); Contractor £5.86m (+VAT).
  • Waking watch £5,720.40 per week, started 12.4.21, due to complete 30.6.21, so we expect ~12 weeks = £69k (+ VAT)
  • Fire alarm  £156k (+ VAT)

The total cost is therefore (55,588+600,000+5,860,000+68,000+156,000)*1.2 = £8,088,300

Split between 126 flats (what liability for the commercial units?) = £64,000

Plus contingency for over-runs/other findings once they open up the building = say up to £70,000 per flat.

A: Your estimates are correct however it is not split equally per unit and that would depend on your apportionment. Our application to the Waking Watch Fund has been accepted. The NHBC are also looking in to our claim to make good on items that should have been in place since development. We are also persuing all avenues to ensure that we can have the best chance of accessing the BSF fund and for them to accept our claim. We therefore hope to have a majority of the costs covered by the various funds however this is not garenteed.

Additional request that was made by 4QM to Y&Y, with a summary of responses from Y&Y:

 

Evidence needed of action taken and responses

 

Hi Aaron

4QM, Raven and the Nobel House Action Group had a meeting last night to discuss all the issues regarding building safety remediation.

You will appreciate the number of people who are seriously worried and stressed about what is happening, or not happening, with the BSF and NHBC claims.

 

There is serious concern that we don't seem to have any evidence on a number of issues. As 4QM is your client with an ARMA agreement and represents most of the leaseholders we have a responsibility of care to them and must now insist we are furnished with actual evidence of all the items below urgently so we can put their concerns at rest.

We realise providing this evidence and information adds to your busy workload but, as you have said this is the only such issue under your personal control, we must insist that it is given top priority and we have the evidence we request by the end of this week.

  • NHBC
    1. What evidence has been provided to NHBC for our claim?  (a copy of your emails, messages or letters with any attachments)

Please see all correspondence with the NHBC. We have had responses as per the attached.

  1. Proof that it has been sent (a copy of your email and replies with any attachments should suffice)
  2. Confirmation of timescales for claim (Has this been requested? Please forward any and all correspondence from NHBC to 4QM.
  1. BSF
    1. Specific (not generic) proof of an expression of interest being made to the BSF for registration before the deadline in July 2020.
      We realise you have already expressed your belief that registration was requested and that you are in dispute with the BSF who say a request was never made. However, the BSF state they have logs showing all requests (even incomplete or failed attempts) and have computer logs showing evidence that no request was ever received or even attempted.
    2. We need actual evidence from yourselves.

GLA – We have already provided you with all the relevant information, however, please see again to ensure this is clear. We are also in discussions with Mr Blunt’s office who we hope will be able to put pressure on the fund for us.

  1. Capital
    1. Confirmation of final cost of first phase of Capital work (preparing the BSF application and associated works)

Capital are hoping to have 95% done as per their email attached and per the instruction taken from 4QM.

  1. Confirmation of the date of extension agreed with Capital to complete this phase
    I will ask Capital for their advice on this point.
  2. The date on the contract must be changed to take into consideration the extension they have requested which must still allow time for BSF application to be made.
  3. Is the split between what’s covered by NHBC/BSF being covered in their work? When will we know the split?

This would really depend on the BSF advising what they will cover. This will also depend on what the NHBC will cover. At this point there has been no confirmation from either party however we are aware that the BSF will not cover anything other than cladding to the fa├žade and insulation. I have asked Capital to breakdown the costs for us and will advise once received.

  1. What is Y&Y’s intention for billing leaseholders?

We are going to be sending out interim charges early next week. This is for the WW in place and for the works by Capital to date. In the future, if we are accepted by the BSF and or NHBC we will look to obtain these funds directly from the various parties however this would depend on where we are at the time. Any funds that we charge for and can recoup will obviously be sent back to leaseholders.

How are Y&Y working to release funds to pay Capital for phase one as we know they will refuse to release or submit documents until they receive the funds?

As per above. Interim invoicing will be sent out next week


4. 4QM

  1. Please raise the amount of Directors Indemnity from £1m to £10m immediately (Please advise as soon as cover is confirmed)

4QM – we have asked the insurers to do so.
Several people wish to join the 4QM board as directors but are unwilling to do so at present as they feel they may be held personally liable for any liability that may be directed towards 4QM for the huge sums at risk here. 

 

Please respond with actual evidence to all the requests above by the end of this week latest.

 

Nobel House Residents Q&As 02.06.21

Below are the weekly questions on the Nobel House cladding issue, including responses in red to specific questions that residents posed.

Questions for Y&Y

Q1: Please can Y&Y provide dates, evidence AND cost for ALL fire safety equipment inspections and servicing in the last three years, including Sprinklers, Fire Extinguishers, common alarm system, and any other relevant fire safety checks.

A:  We are currently collating all this information and will send it across as soon as we can.

 

Q&As 24.05.21 

Below are the weekly questions on the Nobel House cladding issue, including responses in red to specific questions that residents posed.  

Questions for Y&Y  

Q1: Please can you advise when both the sprinklers and fire extinguishers were tested or if dates have been booked in for the inspections to take place. Obviously residents are rather concerned that there is no report of the extinguishers being tested since 2019 and no evidence of sprinklers being tested. We are aware that both should be maintained and tested annually and with the current situation leaseholders are obviously extremely anxious regarding these issues. 

A: All systems are being tested where required. The contractors are due on site as early as next month to retest the systems.  

 

Nobel House Residents Q&As 17.05.21

Below are the weekly questions on the Nobel House cladding issue, including responses in red to specific questions that residents posed.

Questions for Y&Y

Q1: Does Y&Y accept full liability for all costs covered by the Building Safety Fund as they either did not apply, or, if they did apply, did not take the reasonable measures of taking screen shots or other evidence of having applied? Y&Y is legally obliged to have exhausted all other means available to cover costs prior to invoicing leaseholders, so we cannot legally even be invoiced for these costs.

A:  Y&Y accept no responsibility at all. Y&Y applied for the fund and it is clear that we were on record as we received all corresdance relating to the fund. We have been chasing for many months with zero response. This has been on a regular basis and has been made clear to all parties. Please also note that there is zero guarantee that funding is approved at any stage. From speaking with Capital and other firms. They have advised that we are not the only party to have received the same response when persuing the BSF. We have and will continue to exhaust all avenues whether that be the BSF, NHBC and the original developers. Details of which together with proof of the contact we have made has been sent through to 4QM and Raven.

Q2: If you have truly missed the BSF fund deadline and cannot get that funding, nor recharge leaseholders, will Avon be able to cover the costs or is it a risk to their business viability?

A: As per the lease. The freeholder and 4QM are not responsible for the cost of any remedial works but are responsible for ensuring that the works are carried out and that the funds necessary to complete the work is collected from the leaseholders who are liable.

Q3: Will you still seek to use the negotiated tender route or go to the normal tender process (noting that S20 is not applicable if you cannot recharge leaseholders, the negotiated tender route was suggested only due to BSF’s stated preference, and some of the time pressure is removed if you cannot apply to BSF)?

A: We will be looking at serving a Section 20, if required, however we will seek legal advice on the process and take instruction from 4QM as how to proceed on this matter.

Q4: We do however note that the fire engineer stated that remediation should be completed within 12 months of his report of 22nd March 2021. Now that Capital have had time to work on this please could you confirm when remediation work could start on site and be completed, under the procurement options?

A: We would not see any reason for a delay in works. We do not believe they will be completed within the year however this will be clear closer to start date on site.

Q5: Please can you ensure you are in regular contact with Capital at least weekly to ensure their continued good progress?

A: We have regular communication with Capital

Q6: Can you confirm that they will finish their current work on the BSF application preparation prior to the 30thJune? (in case something changes and we can somehow still apply).

A: They are still on target to meet required target.

Q7: What will you be doing to ensure that the fire alarm is installed in the time frame as promised to minimise the waking watch costs?

A: The process is in motion. The works order has been raised and the firm carrying out the works, Raven Maintenance, have ordered the parts required. All is running to the planned schedule.

Q8: On the residents update dated 9.4.21 the cost of the Capital survey was confirmed as being £50,700 including VAT (question2), but in the update from 26.4.21 it seems to have changed to be costing £67,705.90 including VAT? What has caused this change? 

A: The final amount included the firefirms survey and completion of the ESW1 form required.  

 

Nobel House Residents Q&As 10.05.21

Below are the weekly questions on the Nobel House cladding issue, including responses in red to specific questions that residents posed.

Questions for Y&Y

Q1: Can Y&Y provide proof that an application has been made to the Waking Watch Fund?

A: We have had a response from the Waking Watch Remedial Fund (WWRF) to say that the fund had closed for new applications on the 14th March. However, they are in discussions Mr Blunt MP with regard to our application. Following further liaison this week with Y&Y Mr Blunt’s office, yesterday (Thursday 6th May), we understand that he has a meeting planned regarding both our application for the BSF and WWRF.

Q2: Where we are on fire alarm installation which will allow the very expensive waking watch to stop? Initially 2 months was suggested, but we are now 5 weeks in. Also do we have an update on the application to the waking watch fund?

A: Please see weekly update.

Nobel House Residents Q&As 29.04.21

Below is the weekly questions on the Nobel House cladding issue, including responses in red to specific questions that residents posed.

Questions for Raven 29.04.21

Q1: What action is being taken by yourselves to limit the costs passed on to the shared ownership owners? Will we be footing all the expenses passed on by Avon or is it going to be based on our share in the property?

A: Our directors are all aware of this situation and are extremely sympathetic to the position this puts our shared owners in. Raven are currently taking legal advice on on our position in terms of mitigating charges, as we are both regulated by the Government and subject to the rules of being a charitable benefit society. There is quite a lot of complexity and restriction on how we can use our funds but we are seeking to establish exactly what freedom we have here.

Q2: Are you petitioning our local MP / the government on our behalf or is that being left for us owners to do?

A: We are in contact with our local elected representatives and whilst we realise that this is very frustrating for our customers, in the case of Nobel House we have very little opportunity to influence because we don’t hold the freehold. But please be assured that we are working hard on behalf of our shared ownership customers to support Y&Y to secure any grant funding that is available to mitigate the cost of the remedial work at Nobel House.

Q3: When will we be finding out if we are going to be bankrupted by this?

A: Until we know more about the funding available from the Building Safety Fund and whether Y&Y’s claim against the orginal NHBC is successful we don’t know what costs won’t be covered. Raven is a not for profit organisation that exists to provide affordable housing locally, we will do what we reasonably can to mitigate the costs of the work at Nobel House.

Questions for Y&Y 26.04.21

Q1: There are a few items residents would still like to know the costs of:
1. First Survey which was deemed to be insufficient - £2160.00 – still in dispute.
2. Weekly fire safety/alarm checks - £430.00 P/M
3. Capital Survey (unless this is included in their project management fee for the total project) – £67,705.90
Please can Y&Y clarify the above items?

A: Responses next to Q.

Q2: We still believe a regularly maintained spreadsheet of the total fire safety running costs to date would be the best solution to keep leaseholders informed and prepared. Is this something that Y&Y will be able to supply please?

A: We have advised on all the costs to date as per the response to Q1. We will be happy to supply the further costs when they are approved by 4QM.

Q3: The defects in fire safety have been known for quite some time now, insurance renewal was just a couple of months ago. What is so special about June to require a re-evaluation of the insurance premiums?

A: The insurers have advised this is when they will review and renew in June. I can only assume this is due to them wanting to give some time to clarify the issue and understand what the steps are going forward.

Q4: Response to Q12: This question was regarding the upgraded form of the L5 alarm system, not about an upgrade from the existing alarm system. It comes in two forms - one which is for Simultaneous Evacuation policy only and must be removed once works are complete, and one upgraded form which can be converted to be compatible with Stay Put policy and can stay once works are complete. This question was: have we requested quotes for the upgraded L5 alarm system, or the basic L5 alarm system?

A: We have costs on the L5 alarm that will need to be decommissioned when this gets changed.

Q5: Response to Q18: you say that “we have made contact with Hollybrook
about the findings”. Please supply date and type of communication
(email/telephone) with any further details.

A: This has been in form of telephone discusions and of late email correspondence.

Q6: With regard to the weekly fire alarm checks, I have seen no evidence of these  happening for at least the last 4 weeks. Please can Y&Y confirm when they stopped?

A: These are going on weekly.

Q7: Lawtech’s quote does not include other defects etc which were scheduled
in Capital’s intrusive report, including some which may need to be
submitted to the BSF, eg “cavity barriers and fire stopping”. Please
explain.

A:  To our understanding this is for the full works. I have requested clarity from Capital.

Q8: Are the other works identified in the Urban Change Report 22/3/2021
(building defects that are separate to the cladding system) going to be
carried out at the same time? If so, have Capital got quotations for
those yet?

A:The works quoted are for the full works to ensure compliance.

Q9: Is project management for the other works identified in the Urban Change
report dated 22/3/2021 (building defects that are separate to the
cladding system) included in the Capital Fee Proposal?

A: As above.

Q10: When did you last communicate with NHBC and was this via email or phone? Are you also working on the detail of what we can claim from NHBC/developer? When will that be complete and able to be submitted? 

A:  We have received an email as of the 26th April advising they have received the claim. We are making a claim against the NHBC for all defects from build. As per page 41 of the fire report.

Q11: In your response relating to *NHBC*, Q13 in the Q&A dated 19th March
2021, “Are you aware that an application to the NHBC may be turned down
if we do not alert NHBC at the first sign of any fault in the fire
safety system?” you indicate that you “have already put them on notice.”
Do you have a reference number or further details on this item please?

A:  No, we don’t have a reference. However, as per the above, we have received confirmation that the claim has been received.

Q12: In your response relating to the O&M manuals, Q5 of the Q&A dated 23rd
March 2021, you say that "we are going to send it on a USB to Raven to
share". Has this been done? If so, can Raven please share.

A: Yes.

Questions for Capital 19.04.21

Q1: Please could you confirm that we will be able to meet the timeline for submission to the Building Safety Fund to meet its deadline?  Is there anything that could put that at risk that we should ensure is being managed? 

A: We are progressing with the project today and will ensure we will meet the deadlines. 

Q2: The residents want assurance that the claim that we submit will be acceptable to BSF. Please could you confirm for their reassurance how many others you have done already, and how many have been accepted by BSF?

A: We have submitted around 20 applications and so far three have been confirmed. Please note that only around £40m of applications have been funded due to a backlog. We expect all of our applications to be accepted. 

Q3: One of the main risks that could lead to BSF rejecting the submission could be on price. Do you have assurance that the price is reasonable and can be back-up if validated against other bids that have been accepted? 

A: The costs from the contractors are independently verified by a cost consultant to ensure value for money. 

Nobel House Residents Update 09.04.21

Below is the weekly update on progress on the Nobel House cladding issue, including responses in red to specific questions that residents posed.

Questions for Y&Y

Q1: It was discussed at the Nobel House Cladding Action Group last night (7th April) that the original intention of the weekly update was for Y&Y to provide a summary of what progress had been made each week, and what was planned for the next week. The questions were intended to supplement this weekly update, but they seem to have replaced it entirely. Could Y&Y please return to including that summary at the top of each update - "what has happened this week, and what is planned for next week?"

A: We have not changed the process and will continue to respond to questions every two weeks or sooner if necessary, to ensure that leaseholders are kept up to date with the latest updates.

PLEASE NOTE: This is not the arrangement that was originally made we will continue to press for a weekly update and weekly response to questions.

Q2: Can the VAT be claimed back by Y&Y or will the cost of the survey to owners have VAT added, so the actual cost we have to pay will be £50,700? 

A: The service charge pays VAT and therefore whilst we are aware there is talk of the Government cancelling VAT on the required works however this is unknown at present. We will also look at all avenues to see if we can save on these costs.

PLEASE NOTE: We will ask for clarification on this answer.

Q3: Now Y&Y have the full report, have Y&Y made an official claim with the NHBC? If not, why not? If they have, do they have a claim reference?

A: We are currently working through the detail of the full report with Capital’s help we will be making an NHBC claim soon.

Q4: Have the quotes for the installation of the LD5 alarm now been obtained? What is the realistic earliest timeline for getting this installed? (Please note as confirmed previously the installation can proceed without waiting on the Government funding decision outcome, so this is not a blocker).

A: We went out to tender to four companies. We have received back two quotes with another to two to follow by the end of the week (16th April). Once we have at least three quotations, we will be able to submit fully to the WWRF. The lead time for the project is around four to five weeks. The works itself will take approx. six weeks.

Q5: Previously the height of the building was measured by Capital as 21.459m. Why does the full Capital report now list the height as "approx. 19.2m"?

A: Whilst we have queried this measurement with Capital, regardless of the discrepancy, the building is still over the 18m.

Q6: Capital state in the report they were not provided with a copy of the latest FRA (Fire Risk Assessment) for the building. Why were they not provided with this?

A: Capital were provided with all the reports possible – including the FRA, we will query this with Capital.

Q7: Please can we have a report/spreadsheet detailing the costs to date (with specifics) relating to fire safety. Going forward please can we have this on a monthly basis? Where it is anticipated that the cost will be covered by government/NHBC this should also be included but annotated. I’m requesting this, so we have some expectation of how much this is costing, without any further surprises.

A:  The current costs of the waking watch are £5,720.40 plus VAT per week. The works required to remediate are coming in at £5.8M. What the NHBC will cover - if anything and what the BSF will cover -if any, is still unknown. We will ensure to advise leaseholders as soon as we are aware.

PLEASE NOTE: We will ask Y&Y again to provide regular updates on costs relating to fire safety.

Q8: Can we ask that if communications via letter are going out by Y&Y, these be sent to Raven in advance, before they send to full owners so that Raven can try to then post them out with the hope that all residents/leaseholders receive the communication at the same time. Can Y&Y & Raven have a joined up approach with dates of when they want residents to receive the information. Yesterday [the waking watch costs letter] was obviously quite a stressful and worrying time when all the messages were coming out re the letter and by some residents not receiving the information anxiety’s were running high (obviously-cannot be avoided if letters are delayed by postal service). This is a difficult time for all & I just want the communication of vital information to be better organised between all parties to avoid it having a negative effect on our mental health.

A: We have always tried to work together to ensure correspondence is sent out in conjunction with Raven and will continue to work more closely with one another to ensure this is the case.

Q9: Residents have not yet been issued with an updated Fire Evacuation Policy following the Waking Watch order. This is vital this communication goes out so all residents of the building are aware of the change from Stay Put to Simultaneous Evacuation. When will this be being issued, and when will the signage in the building be being updated?

A: To avoid any potential problems or confusion, we wouldn’t communicate any changes to the Fire Evacuation Policy until they are actually implemented.

The waking watch team sent out information on the waking watch, updates to the evacuation policy, as well as changing the building’s signage on Friday 9th April when the waking watch was officially in place.

Q10: Have Y&Y updated the building insurance provider of the current fire safety position? If yes, what impact has this had on the cost of the premium?

A: All parties have been updated and the premium is currently being held at the same cost but this will be reviewed in June.

Q11: When are Y&Y going to issue the various Section 20 notices? They will be required for the waking watch costs, the installation of fire alarm costs, external wall remedial works and other building defects? The initial S20 notices need to be issued as soon as there is an intention to incur costs and not wait until quotes have been received. The letter of 26 March 2021 does not constitute a Section 20 notice.

A: We have been working with Raven to get the best possible cost for the waking watch. Whilst the waking watch is a substantial ongoing cost, there is no requirement to serve any S20 notices. This is because it is being put in place to increase the safety of the block and needs to be done at the earliest possible time, which will not allow for the S20 standard three-month process. 

With regards to costs for the alarm system and major defects, we are hoping to have this covered by government funding and would be willing to appeal for any funding, due to these works being essential to reduce costs in the long-term. Whilst we do not believe we will need to go through this process, we are seeking cautionary legal advice on this matter.

Q12: Do the tenders for the LD5 fire alarms include the upgrade option? If not, why not?

A: As part of the tender process, each company has been asked to quote for an L5 alarm system, which is an upgrade from what’s in place at the moment.

Q13: Can Y&Y clarify the different government funding sources which have been applied for because the letter of 26 March 2021 is confusing and contradictory?

A:  We are in the process of sourcing funding from the Waking Watch Relief Fund for the alarm system and the BSF for the replacement of the building’s cladding.

Q14: In Y&Y’s letter of 26 March 2021, what fund is being referred to in paragraph 1 under “Funding”?

A: This refers to the non-ACM cladding fund.

Q15: In Y&Y’s letter of 26 March 2021, who is the fire design consultant referred to under “Next Steps”?

A:  Capital, the same company that carried out the major intrusive investigative works.

Q16: How sure are Raven/Y&Y/4QM that everyone in the building knows the current situation, including the start (today 8th April 21) of waking watch?

A: We believe that all leaseholders, and in turn their tenants, are aware of the waking watch that is currently in place.

Q17: Might it be safe and best practice for Raven/Y&Y/4QM to manually post an explanatory leaflet into every single unit to explain what is happening? Or at least create an information sheet that can be posted on the corridors of Nobel House??

A: As of 9th April, the waking watch team will be available on site to speak to and answer any questions. Part of their role is to ensure all residents are able to exit safely should they require to in an emergency and provide assistance where possible.

Q18: Are Y&Y making a claim on Hollybrook straightaway as a matter of urgency? If so, please let us know the date and reference number for this claim. If not, why not??

A:  We have made contact with Hollybrook about the findings.

PLEASE NOTE: We will ask Y&Y to confirm when they made contact with Hollybrook.

Q19: Are Y&Y seeking to employ Capital for application to the government’s Building Safety Fund?

A: Yes.

Questions for Raven

Q1.  At the moment it looks as if Raven are looking to pass on 100% of costs relating to fire safety to shared owners. In the letter it states that Raven are a not for profit organisation. However, Raven stand to profit from contributing 0% towards making the building safe and then owning (and in most cases) a majority share in shared owners apartments by having an asset that is saleable again.  Is this the firm decision - that shared owners will be liable for a 100% of the costs?

A: Shared owners at Nobel House have the responsibility in legal terms to pay all of the costs. We however hope there will be contributions from government grants which will reduce these costs. Raven is taking legal advice on the position regarding use of charitable funds for this kind of activity and will review our own position once we know the outcome of this advice and the cost implications of all work and grants.

Q2. It’s all well and good saying we will be expected to pay the reconciliation in September 2022, but the costs in relation to building safety are escalating quickly before any remedial works are done. Are we able to get regular updates on how much are reconciliation will be, so that we can plan for this financially?

A: We absolutely understand the need to have an accurate picture of any amount that our shared ownership customers are likely to need to pay as soon as is possible. Unfortunately, we can’t be specific as we don’t know how much of the costs that are being incurred will be successfully covered by funding that Y&Y will be applying for.

Q3: Do Raven have any other buildings within their shared ownership portfolio that are facing the same issues as NH? If so, how many?

A: No, we do not have buildings with similar issues. Our only other building over 18m tall is the Dome in Redhill which has a clear EWS1 form with an ‘A1’ rating, I.e. no significant combustible materials on the external walls.

Q4: Has a policy decision been reached regarding shared owners contribution to costs relating to fire safety (i.e. only being liable for the % that they own)? If not, why has a decision not been made and when can we expect this?

A: Please see answer to Q1.

Nobel House Residents Update 01.04.21

Below is the weekly update on progress on the Nobel House cladding issue, including responses in red to specific questions that residents posed.

Questions for Y&Y (Aaron from Y&Y is on annual leave this week, Jo Hills from Raven had answered this week’s questions in Aaron’s absence).

Q1: Can the VAT be claimed back by Y&Y or will the cost of the survey to owners have VAT added, so the actual cost we have to pay will be £50,700? 

A: This question will need to be answered by Y&Y next week.

Q2: When will residents be provided with a full copy of the intrusive survey report that has resulted in the Waking Watch recommendation?

A: We understand that Y&Y are still awaiting the report to come through from the fire engineer. We have certainly not seen it yet at Raven.

Q3: What are the specific qualifications of the Fire Engineer who has made this recommendation? This is important as only specific qualifications can be used to justify this.

A: The fire engineer is Gavin W Jones MEng CEng MIFireE MSyI, a fire, safety and security expert.

Q4: Has Surrey Fire and Rescue Service confirmed they agree with this recommendation, including the need for three full time staff at all times?

A: Yes, they have agreed with the recommendation.

Q5: I’ve been in and out the building throughout the day (30.03.21). I’ve seen no sign of the Waking Watch, so am assuming that it’s not in place and we won’t be charged for today?

A: That is correct. Recruitment and training is currently underway.

Q6: Where is the legislation that refers to the requirement for a Waking Watch?

A: The H&S at work act is a good starting point:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/37/section/4

Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 

“General duties of persons concerned with premises to persons other than their employees.

(2) It shall be the duty of each person who has, to any extent, control of premises to which this section applies or of the means of access thereto or egress therefrom or of any plant or substance in such premises to take such measures as it is reasonable for a person in his position to take to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the premises, all means of access thereto or egress therefrom available for use by persons using the premises, and any plant or substance in the premises or, as the case may be, provided for use there, is or are safe and without risks to health.”

Surrey Fire & Rescue, in backing this decision up, also referred us to the NFCC guide waking watch  which states:

“It is the responsibility under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (FSO) of the Responsible Person (RP) to ensure the provision of the waking watch is maintained until fire safety issues are fully remediated. Where the need for a waking watch has been identified, these will be essential for maintaining the viability of the premises for continued residential occupation. The need to implement and maintain a waking watch is one which RPs need to do in order to safeguard residents due to specific fire safety issues with the building.”

There is other legislation and guidance that people may wish to look up.

Q7: Can the decision that a Waking Watch is needed be challenged?

A: I do not know if anyone else has tried to challenge a Waking Watch but It may be useful to consider that there are some people living in the building, who we are aware of, that have genuine fears of a fire occurring because of the cladding on the building. Additionally, the Fire Service have enforcement powers available to them should they be concerned about fire safety or adherence to fire safety recommendations.

 

Nobel House Residents Update 23.03.21

Below is the weekly update on progress on the Nobel House cladding issue, including responses in red to specific questions that residents posed.

Questions for Y&Y

Q1: Do you have a Fire Safety Policy (NOT the Fire Risk Assessment)? All residents and owners should have sight of the Fire Safety Policy, can you please send this policy to 4QM and Raven so that people can have easy access? 

A: Currently there is a ‘Stay Put’ policy in place which is available by the entrance and also on every floor. However, following the recent FRA and the advanced information available to us as a result of the Capital survey of the external cladding we are currently reviewing this policy.

Q2 Insufficient from previous week. It might "depend on the lease agreements in place" ... WHAT ARE THE LEASE AGREEMENTS IN PLACE?! Y&Y/Avon must have information on the lease agreements. Please can they check these agreements and answer the questions as to whether the trade leaseholders pay a service charge as well and are therefore liable for extra charges (should there be any) with regard to the current fire safety works.

A: The commercial units do also pay a service charge and are also liable for a percentage of any cost of remedial work.

Q3. "We are in discussions with MHCLG" ... please tell us more about what these discussions involve because we are still waiting to hear about our BSF application. The last update from Y&Y was that they'd heard nothing from MHCLG. What have they now heard? Please can Y&Y submit evidence of their discussions with the MHCLG, OR if they can’t do this describe in full where exactly they are in the process of ascertaining whether their initial registration has resulted in a letter of invitation to apply for BSF support.

A: To reassure residents we can confirm that numerous emails chasing MHCLG with regard to Nobel House have been sent, as yet we have only received the one response, which was received early in March. We understand the request to see copies of actual emails, but we won’t be able to share individual emails, partly because we chase MHCLG on behalf of our residents so frequently and because often when we contact MHCLG it isn’t solely about Nobel House. We don’t want residents to see this as a cause for concern, we anticipate that once we have the appropriate evidence to make a claim, we will be able to make a claim against the Building Safety Fund.

Q4. Why is the Capital fee an estimated figure? This sum £42,000 is contradicted in Q22 where the figure is £45,000. Why? Why is the fee an estimated figure?

A: The final fee for the investigation work undertaken by Capital is £42,248.25 + VAT. The next phase of work that we are going to ask Capital to undertake at Nobel House will form part of our Building Safety Fund claim which does allow for project management costs of up to 10% of the total project costs.

Q5. With regard to sending the O&M manuals. There are many documented ways of sending large files. This should not be taking Y&Y a long time.

A: The file is too big to send via Dropbox or WeTransfer, we are going to send it on a USB to Raven to share.

Q6: When the building was originally tested for ACM following the Grenfell tragedy in 2017, no ACM was found. Now in 2020 the JWA survey suggests that ACM has been on the building all along. This would imply the testing done in 2017 was far from satisfactory; it seems not all the different types of panels on the building were tested. The question is: why was the ACM not discovered in the 2017 testing? Who was contracted to do the testing, who chose which panels to test, and why were not all of the different types of panels on the building tested?

A: When the O&M manuals were provided there was no mention of ACM, the only evidence of ACM was found from a visual inspection by JWA in August 2020. There was no reason to believe that ACM was present before this time. This visual inspection did not identify whether the ACM seen was flammable, this will be established by further testing work by Capital.

Nobel House Residents Update 19.03.21

Below is the weekly update on progress on the Nobel House cladding issue, including responses to specific questions that residents posed.

Questions for Y&Y

Q1: Do you have a Fire Safety Policy (NOT the Fire Risk Assessment)? All residents and owners should have sight of the Fire Safety Policy, can you please send this policy to 4QM and Raven so that people can have easy access? 

A: Of course, please see attached.

PLEASE NOTE: This was not attached and is still outstanding. We will ask Y&Y for a copy.

Q2: The ACM fund has been reopened, will an application to that fund now be made and if so when?

A:  We have requested for this grant through the BSF.

Q3. Not answered from previous week. Who is the Fire Risk Assessor? Is the current Fire Risk Assessor Delco Safety who provided the last Fire Risk Assessment (FRA) v.3? Why not answer the question with a name?

A:  The Fire Risk Assessor is Delco Safety.

Q4 Insufficient from previous week. It might "depend on the lease agreements in place" ... WHAT ARE THE LEASE AGREEMENTS IN PLACE?! Y&Y/Avon must have information on the lease agreements. Please can they check these agreements and answer the questions as to whether the trade leaseholders pay a service charge as well and are therefore liable for extra charges (should there be any) with regard to the current fire safety works.

A: This would incorporate the commercial elements as well.

PLEASE NOTE: This question will be carried forward to next week, to try to establish what elements can be answered without sharing commercially sensitive information.

Q5. "We are in discussions with MHCLG" ... please tell us more about what these discussions involve because we are still waiting to hear about our BSF application. The last update from Y&Y was that they'd heard nothing from MHCLG. What have they now heard? Please can Y&Y submit evidence of their discussions with the MHCLG, OR if they can’t do this describe in full where exactly they are in the process of ascertaining whether their initial registration has resulted in a letter of invitation to apply for BSF support.

A: We are now awaiting the specification of works so we can submit this to the MHCLG BSF.

PLEASE NOTE: We will ask Y&Y if they can provide more detail on what discussions there have already been with MHCLG.

Q6. What is the fee that is currently in dispute?

A: £5,280.00.

Q7. Why is the Capital fee an estimated figure? This sum £42,000 is contradicted in Q22 where the figure is £45,000. Why? Why is the fee an estimated figure?

A: The cost is dependent on how far we go with the firm and what expertise we use with them.

PLEASE NOTE: We will ask for clarification on the breakdown of their estimate and what services have already been commissioned.

Q8. With regard to sending the O&M manuals. There are many documented ways of sending large files. This should not be taking Y&Y a long time.

A: That is correct.

PLEASE NOTE: We will ask Y&Y again to share the O&M manuals so that we can then share them with residents.

Q9 To our knowledge the Trespa cladding has never been tested. Please provide evidence. It has not been shared previously. Why do Y&Y believe that the Trespa panels have been tested?? They say that we have been given test results for these but that's absolutely untrue, the only "test results" we have are that they are not ACM. We know this, they can't be, because they're HPL (High Pressure Laminate) - one of the key types of cladding which have been identified as specifically needing testing/replacement via the non-ACM find. It's staggering to discover at this point that Y&Y still believe them to be safe / previously tested. They categorically have not been!

A: I am not too sure what the query is on this one. No one is contradicting the statement. The trespa cladding was tested for ACM. The survey being carried out now is to ensure the exact combustibility. This is one of the very reasons for the survey.

Q10: What impact, if any, does the new guidance issued by RICS on the issue of EWS1 forms have on applying for certification for Nobel House?

A: It does not have much relevance as most the guidance that makes a difference is in reference to buildings up to 5 stories.

Q11: There is absolutely NO fire test report for the Trespa panels. On Raven’s website the document that is labelled “Trespa Testing Report” is in fact the JWA Report which indicates a need for further review of the cladding in location areas 2&3 (ie Trespa). The only proper fire testing that has been done is on the ACM panels at Warrington in 2020. Previously in 2017, two sections of cladding (presumably Trespa) were sent to BRE and were returned untested as they were non ACM, ie these test samples were NOT ACMtherefore ineligible for the testing at that time. Can Y&Y agree that the Trespa panels have not undergone a fire test?

A: Please see response to Q9.

Q12: On page 9 of the Building Safety Fund Guidance under Cost Recovery it clearly says “You are required to demonstrate that you have taken all reasonable steps to recover the costs of replacing the unsafe non-ACM cladding from those responsible through insurance claims, warranties, legal action etc. At the application stage we will ask for information regarding such steps and may seek further information to satisfy ourselves of the position.”

A: As per previous discussion and responses. We will be making a claim against NHBC should we be eligible following the intrusive report which is being carried out at this time. 

Q13: Are you aware that an application to the NHBC may be turned down if we do not alert NHBC at the first sign of any fault in the fire safety system?

A: We are not aware, however we have already put them on notice.

Q14: If NHBC do turn down our application on account of prior evidence (JWA report) how fair would it be for leaseholders to absorb these costs?

A: We do not see any reason for them to turn this down for those reasons. The report by JWA would have not been sufficient for them to accept a claim and therefore on the contrary this will only assist with a claim.

Q15: A Fire Risk Assessment (FRA) is NOT a fire policy : we need a Fire Policy for the building that does not say “Stay Put” as this recommendation has been superseded. We also need a Fire Policy that shows an evacuation procedure. Please can Y&Y send details of the current Fire Policy and if there is no policy, please can Y&Y assure us that one will be forthcoming in the fastest possible time.

A: Letters will be sent out with a clear strategy. This is to ensure that all residents are clear of the fire policy.

Q16: Surely there is a more up to date Fire Risk Assessment than v.3 dated 20/9/19 considering all the new evidence that has come out since then? Are Fire Risk Assessments not supposed to be carried out Annually? Please send the latest FRA and outline the works required. The FRA should surely be available to all owners?

A: A new assessment was carried out last month. We are in the process of drawing up a schedule of works with our firm of contractors. The assessment is attached.

Q17: With costs amounting to more than £250 per unit and with no S20, that surely means the costs will be absorbed by the freeholder?

A: I am not too sure what this is referring too? If this is the cladding works. Section 20s will be served if required. We will await the outcome of the report and advise before the next stage.

Q18: With the new deadline for the Building Safety Fund looming, it is concerning to hear that we may not be seeking to go through the fund. The Government recently committed that no leaseholder in a building with a height greater than 18m will have to pay for the replacement of cladding. This includes Nobel House. It's vitally important we make an application to the Building Safety Fund.

A: We are aware of this and as per previous responses. We are in contact with the MHCLG.

Q19: What avenues have Y&Y explored with regard to a retrospective application to the ACM fund, given their previously stated intention to do so?

A: Please see answer to Q2

Q20: In the aftermath of Grenfell, why were the ACM panels on the building not discovered by the original testing that took place in 2017? If Y&Y have extensive O&M manuals, why were all the different types of panels on the building not identified and tested? Why were the ACM panels not identified at the time?

A: We had all the information from the Risk Assessor and the Gov information at the time. This was all found to be acceptable at the time. However, since then the introduction of the EWS1 certification process has led to further tests being needed.

Nobel House Residents Update 05.03.21

Below is the weekly update on progress on the Nobel House cladding issue, including responses in red to specific questions that residents posed.

Questions for Y&Y

Q1: When exactly was the building built?

A:  The leases were sold in 2013.

Q2: Does NHBC cover run out at 10 years?

A:  Yes, that is correct. I can confirm that the policies for the Common Parts will expire on the 20 March 2023. The first policies in the building came into force on the 21 March 2011 and at the time it was opted for the additional two years’ worth of addition cover on top of the normal 10 years.

Q3: Who was the fire safety officer that said the building should be inspected weekly, was it Surrey Fire Service or a private company? (I cannot understand why Y&Y are having fire safety visits if they do not take action on what is reported to them, of this is supposing that the issues are highlighted by the company carrying out the inspections).

A: The firm that have advised on the weekly testing is our Fire Risk assessor. All recommendations are carried out. Safety is the priority.

Q7: What is the situation regarding the businesses who trade from the building (e.g. Sports Direct, Co-op)? (One presumes they pay a separate Annual Service Charge but are also liable for costs regarding fire safety throughout the building).

A: That would depend on the lease agreements in place.

Q8: According to the MHCLG website (Fund Application Guidance), when a freeholder registers an interest in the BSF they should expect a response after a period of about four weeks or a little longer, but only if their application meets all the required criteria. Surely Y&Y must realise after six months, that saying that they are regularly checking their status of BSF application is a futile process. Will Y&Y be submitting another claim to the BSF once the new intrusive survey report has been published.

A: We are in discussions with the MHCLG and we continue to provide any information needed to meet their requirements to ensure we have the best chance of acceptance.

Q9. What was the fee for the JWA and Warrington survey and fire testing report?

A: The fee is currently in dispute.

Q10: What is the fee for the Capital survey?

A: The fee for the Capital survey is estimated to be £42,000.

Q11. Could Y&Y send O&M manuals to 4QM/Raven as they will have construction details of the external wall system? Aaron said he could send them, but were too large to email.

A: Of course, we will have to work a way to send these out.

Q13: Apart from the fire test undertaken in 2017, do you have fire safety test results for the Trespa cladding?

A: All this information was sent previously. Please see Raven’s website for historic questions https://www.ravenht.org.uk/your-home/homeowners/nobel-house/nobel-house-faqs/

Q14: Will you be arranging for the Trespa cladding to be tested at one of the government's testing facilities as soon as the survey is complete in case of delays and in order to meet the deadline for application to the Building Safety Fund?

A: This has already been carried out and the test results shared.

Q16. If it is confirmed that Nobel House is lacking cavity breaks and fire stops, a building regulation requirement at the time the building was signed off, will Y&Y be making a claim against the NHBC or Hollybrook? Or have you already?

A: We are awaiting for the current survey findings before we make a decision on whether we will be able to make a claim against NHBC or the original developer.

Q17: Will you proactively pursue NHBC for a response and keep us informed by sending us copies of their responses? (so that owners can be assured that Y&Y is protecting them from unnecessary costs and at the same time making accountable those that have contributed to this problem, specifically the NHBC whose inspector signed off our building as safe).

A: We will of course be exploring all avenues, including making a claim against any NHBC certificate in place. We can only do this when we know what work is required once we have the findings of the survey and details of the remedial work that is required. We will keep all residents updated as we know more, including any details of progress if we do make an NHBC claim.

Q18: After the Capital report is in, and at the first sign that there are faults in the fire safety structure, are you going to inform NHBC so that we fulfil their terms and conditions to alert as soon as evidence is available?

A: Yes, that is correct.

Q19: What is the completion date for the Capital survey report?

A: From the consultants’ schedule we are due to receive the full report and costings six weeks after the date they started on site, which takes us up to 19th March.

Q20: Why was the alarm panel sounding all day on the 6th floor last week with no remedial offered? The residents are now familiar with (and posted on Facebook) how to silence the fire alarm system, which is not a good situation to be in. When a communal smoke detection system is installed but not properly maintained or support provided, when paired with a Stay Put Policy, this is a risky situation.

 A: This may have been due to works being carried out on the site at the time. If there is any issue with the alarm, as in the past, residents are asked to get in touch to alert us of the issue.  Importantly, it is highly unsafe for residents to simply disable the alarm yourselves. There could be a fire you are unaware of and you would then be directly responsible for the consequences.

Q21: How soon could we see the new Fire Risk Assessment and your responses to the remedials?

A: We are currently going over the FRA. All works required will be carried out right away.

Q22: How much has been spent to date on survey or otherwise related to fire safety? 

A: The annual cost for the extra fire checks in approx. £5,000. The cost of the survey, intrusive investigative works etc is approx. £45,000.

Q23: Please provide more information about the upcoming insurance renewal. If the renewal date is 01.03.21, then they should have had a quote by now that they can share- at least then we know what to expect and how much of an increase there might be. Please provide details of all quotes obtained by Y&Y for the next year's insurance. 

A: The freeholder takes out the insurance policy who then passes this on to Y&Y for collection of the cost as per the lease requirement. We are not involved in the process. I can however confirm the current rating has still been held by the insurers and therefore the costs will be in line with the current premiums.

Q24: Following the Capital report around 19th March, is the intention of Y&Y to engage Capital to assist with the BSF application, and to carry out the remedial works?

A: We will look to do so, however, this will be discussed once the report comes back. It may be that we are going to make a claim against NHBC and not through the fund. At this stage we are not sure what will show up on the report. 

Q25: There is still some confusion around the expiry of the NHBC certificate. Some owners seem to have certificates to 2023, while some have it as expiring 2021. Could Y&Y confirm once and for all the exact expiry of the NHBC certificate for all flats? 

A: The certificates are with each individual leaseholder therefore it would be dependent on the certification. We have on behalf of the leaseholders enquired with the NHBC as to the timelines.

Q26: In last week’s update the following responses appear to be contradictory, can this be clarified please - have you applied to ACM or non-ACM funds or both? 

A: We have only applied to the  Non-ACM fund.

Q27: Government grants for ACM have been retrospectively applied for. Please send proof. 

A: We don’t have proof as such, because our application has not been accepted nor have we been invited to apply at this stage. 

Q28: ACM/non-ACM grants have both been applied for. Please send proof. Will deadlines be met? 

A: We were not able to apply to the ACM fund as this fund closed before there was any evidence of ACM on the block.

Nobel House Residents Update 19.02.21

Questions for Y&Y Management

Q1: When is the building insurance due for renewal and will there be an impact on the premium from all of this? What have Y&Y been quoted for renewal, insurance companies/brokers give notice of renewal premiums well in advance of their renewal date.

A: The date for renewal is 01.03.21. 

Q2: What is the height of the building (as per measurement methodology for the Building Safety Fund) just so we can be certain that it is applicable for the fund? 

A: The height is 21.459m as confirmed by the consultant following measurements on site last week. This should mean it is eligible for the Building Safety Fund.

Q3. If it is confirmed that Nobel House is lacking cavity breaks and fire stops, a building regulation requirement at the time the building was signed off, will Y&Y be making a claim against the NHBC or Hollybrook? Or have you already?

A: No, we are awaiting full and reliable evidence from the report after the new investigations.

Q4: What is the completion date for the Capital survey report?

A: From the consultants’ schedule, we should get the full report and costings around 19th March.

Questions for Raven

Q1: What scenario planning are they doing on how they will support their shared owners in event of full funding; partial funding; no funding; rumoured government “loans”? Raven now have had over 5 months of notice on this issue, so what plans have they discussed so to support with managing the extensive projected costs.

A: Support for our shared ownership customers at Nobel House is discussed at executive level regularly and we do understand what a really difficult situation our customers face. As your question suggests, there are still so many uncertainties surrounding what government funding will be available to complete remedial work and of course we still don’t know until the current survey is complete the extent of the work that is needed. Unsatisfactory as it is, we need to wait for greater clarity on what work is needed and what funding will be available.

Q2: Shared Ownership leases allow Raven to pass on 100% of costs to full owners. Essentially, each shared ownership flat is a Raven asset. Has consideration been given to only passing costs according to the percentage of the flat the shared owner owns? It seems that Raven would substantially benefit by contributing zero cost.

A: As above, this will all be reviewed once we know the work needed, costs and level of government subsidy.

Nobel House Residents Update 05.02.21

Below is the weekly update on progress on the Nobel House cladding issue, including responses in red to specific questions that residents posed.

Further questions asked by members of the Facebook group, collated 20.01.21.

Answers are from Y&Y Management

Q1: What is the official height of Nobel House? This will be important for our Building Safety Fund application.

A: This will be something the surveyor will be able to advise on. We believe the height to be just above 18M.

Q2: Who currently provides Nobel House's Buildings Insurance? What is the current annual premium, and when is the renewal date?

A: The freeholder is responsible for taking out buildings insurance. The current annual premium is £19,938.22. The renewal is the 1st March 2021.

Q3: Please provide us with the latest progress on contract negotiations with the new company for the intrusive survey and BSF application

A: The intrusive survey work is due to start week commencing Monday 8th February.

Q4. Has any progress been made on contacting the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) who are administering the BSF, to determine the status of Nobel House's invitation to apply?

A: We are regularly checking the status of the BSF but have not yet been invited to apply.

Q5: With insurance companies it is always important to initiate a claim when the issues first become evident and whilst we don’t know the current extent of the problem, please could Y&Y confirm that they have definitely “lodged” (as stated in the Minutes of the zoom call 8thJanuary 2021) a claim with NHBC for the missing cavity barriers and fire stops that have already been identified.

A: A claim won’t be made until the survey is completed and we know what remedial work will be required.

Q6: Having read the Warrington Report, we can see that it includes a fire test on a section of ACM cladding from Nobel House, but there is no mention of the Trespa cladding which covers most of our building. In the zoom call meeting of 8thJanuary Aaron stated that testing of the Trespa cladding “was originally done by the governments testing facility” and that he would send the report from Warrington. Can Y&Y explain why the Trespa cladding was not included in the Warrington Report sent through with the Minutes and send definitive proof of the tests that have been carried out on the Trespa cladding, together with results from that testing.

A: That is a very good question and one that we asked the same of the firm who carried out the survey/testing. This is one of many reasons why we could not rely on the report’s findings. We understand was that they felt that there was no need to test the Trespa cladding because of findings available from the original developer and tests carried out by the Government testing lab.

Q7: In the questions submitted to Y&Y for the zoom call on 8thJanuary when asked “Why have Y&Y involved firms and then dismissed their findings” you said that you had “used the previous contractor on other buildings without issue, however it appears that Nobel House proved too complicated and their standards were not acceptable. We therefore felt it was necessary to obtain a new survey.” Please can you now explain which company you are referring to by “previous contractor”, why Nobel House proved “too complicated” and why “their standards were not acceptable”?

A: The report that was attached to the minutes carried out by the firm JWA. I’m afraid we don’t know why it was too complicated.

Q8: As we understand it, JWA commissioned the Fire test by Warrington Test Lab and that you are withholding the entire fee because the work was 'inadequate'. On the face of it the Warrington report is a perfectly straightforward test report on the ACM cladding which was supplied to them. The assessment of the JWA report would depend on what brief they were given. Could Y & Y explain whether it is JWA's or Warrington's part of the package which they consider inadequate and precisely why, along with the cost of each part of the bill in question?

A: We consider the package as a whole unsuitable and not fit for purpose.

Q9: One of the questions on the zoom call 8th January asked “Can the original construction company not provide answers regarding the types of materials used originally” and Y&Y’s reply was that you have obtained these from the developers. Does this mean that Y&Y have been able to ascertain the types of cladding specified in the original plans? If so, despite an intrusive survey being required to fully ascertain the situation, please can you supply us with this information now?

A: The information we have from the developers was included in the attachments sent out with the minutes. We also have all the O and M manuals however that does not mean it complies with current legislation which has changed in recent years, the need for new investigations.

Q10: It is good to hear that Y&Y have been in contact with Hollybrook (the original developers) as they and the freeholder Avon may need to prepare a case against them if it is found that building regulations were not followed; it is not just the fault of the building control inspector if there are faults or omissions in the installations on buildings, all the various sectors involved will be expected to take their share of the blame and ultimately bear the costs. The government has stipulated many times that they wish to protect leaseholders from the remediation costs of putting right historical faults in the building system as a whole and as such will expect freeholders/owners/landlords to remediate their buildings as a matter of urgency and to pursue all avenues with insurance companies, builders, developers to reimburse costs either to themselves or back to the government if loans have been taken out in the form of a grant from either of the Building Safety Funds (ACM and non ACM). What plans or preparations have Avon/Y&Y made towards making a case against Hollybrook and how do they propose to manage this?

A: We will let you know once they have been back in touch with us.

Q11: Please can Y&Y confirm the date by which the government requires completion of the remediation work for non ACM cladding when funded by a grant from the Building Safety Fund?

A: On the 17th December 2020 the MCHLG announced an extension to the closing date for applications to the BSF to 30th June 2021 with the start on site date moving to 30th September 2021.

Questions raised at the virtual meeting 08.01.21

Present situation

Q12: Most cladding is ‘Trespa’ or similar and is considered safe. Is this confirmed? Were samples tested? 

A: At present, we understand from the developers that is the case. Testing has also been carried out at two points of the building. The results of these tests confirmed that the cladding tested was non-ACM.

Q13: The small strip alongside ‘Queensway stairs’ is ACM and is the only cladding considered unsafe and that requires replacement. The rest is Trespa. Please confirm.

A: Correct. That is our understanding. There may be other issues with cavity barriers, however at this stage we cannot confirm. We will be able to do so once the intrusive survey is carried out.

Q14: Fire stops and cavity barriers are said to be missing. To what extent and where?

A: Please see response above.

Q15: Understand balconies with wooden decking need replacement. Is this advisory or compulsory legislation.

A: That would depend on the type of structure. It is an issue if the balcony decking is combustible with no metal structure below. This will all be clear once the survey is completed.

Q16: Weekly fire inspections are being carried out. Why? Surely nothing changes week to week.

A: Weekly fire checks were recommended by the fire officer and firm that carry out the fire risk assessment for the block.

Costs and grants

Q17: NHBC may be liable for missing fire stop/cavity barriers but if construction passed building regulations at the time, we have no case. Is this being looked into further by Y&Y?

A: Once we have the findings of the survey we will consider this.

Q18: Government grants for ACM have been retrospectively applied for. Please send proof. Why not sent in time?

A: We don’t have proof as such, because our application has not been accepted nor have we been invited to apply at this stage. The second part of the question is not relevant as this was applied for in the correct timeline.

Q19: ACM/non-ACM grants have both been applied for. Please send proof. Will deadlines be met? 

A: We were not able to apply to the ACM fund as this fund closed before there was any evidence of ACM on the block.

Q20: If the original construction company can’t advise the types of materials used, have copies of original specifications and drawings been requested?  Please request copies of specifications.

See answer to Q9 above.

Q21: New consultants details should be confirmed by 22 Jan. When will proposal and timeline be available?

A: These details have already been shared.

Q22: Y&Y have pre-registered for the Building Safety Fund but still not received an invitation to apply for the full 1st Stage Application. Is there a reason? Have all criteria been met? Please send proof. Will deadlines be met? 

A: We do not know why at this stage that we have not yet received an invitation. Please see response to Q18.

Q23: State aid forms must be completed by all owners (i.e. both partners if joint owned). These have to be sent to Y&Y (the responsible entity) to send on. Why haven’t we been asked to do this yet? Is it still necessary post Brexit? This will take some time: organising, collating and checking. When will Y&Y organise this?

A:  We will only be able to do this once we have been invited to apply.

Unfortunately, many owners have lost faith in Y&Y and are demanding proof of actions that we are told have happened.

We would respectfully therefore ask that you supply copies of the following:

  1. Claim lodged with NHBC. We are not able to share email correspondence with the NHBC however we have lodged a claim and the details of the claim will only be sent over once we have the findings of the survey being carried out starting week commencing 8th February.
  2. Proof of both non-ACM and ACM requests for funding – please see response above.
  3. Nobel House Health & Safety and Fire Safety Policies – The Fire Risk Assessment was provided with the minutes of the recent meeting. Please follow link to view – click here.
  4. Trespa testing report (if it was carried out – This was also provided with the minutes of the recent meeting. Please follow link to view – click here.
  5. Buildings original specifications and drawings from NHBC Building Control – We can have the O and M manuals sent over however the files are far too large to email across.
  6. Copy of the new survey as soon as it becomes available – This will be distributed.

Nobel House Residents Update 03.02.21

To view the scope of work for the new consultants appointed please click here

Nobel House Residents Update 22.01.21

Below is the weekly update on progress on the Nobel House cladding issue, including responses in red to specific questions that residents posed in recent days. Answers to the other questions asked by residents will follow next week.

Questions asked by Jo Hills, Raven Housing Trust, answered by Aaron from Y&Y Monday 18.01.21

Q1: As I understand it, we had agreed on a plan to undertake the investigations now and then, once we have the costs and works plan, to proceed to negotiated tender to enable us to meet the BSF deadlines. But meanwhile to also begin a normal S20 process once we have the results of the investigations and costs and works plan to run in parallel in case the BSF funding does not come through.

A: That is correct. We are awaiting a further update and conformation on the timeline from Capital. The timeline is dependent on confirmation from Surrey County Council that a crane licence is granted. As soon as the licence is secured Capital have a crane on standby for either w/c 25.01.21 or w/c 01.02.21.

Q2: I’m not sure if there has been communication that I was not copied into with Capital - have you commissioned them formally now to begin work? 

A: As per the above, we have not yet had confirmation. I have chased this week (w/c 18.01.21).

Q3: Can they still meet their proposed timescale of completing the investigations by end January?

A: I hope they can, however, I will know more once I have some further detail from them. I do worry when dealing with these firms that pushed too hard, they throw in the towel. 

Q4: Have you had any response yet from BSF confirming the invitation to apply?

A: Not yet. I have however just got off the phone to the GSA and asked them to chase this for me. 

Q5: What is the status of/progress with the NHBC claim?

A: We have not heard back however. It will really depend on the report once back form capital.  At the moment, we do not have much to go on.

Q6: What progress has been made in seeking remedy from the developer, Hollybrook?

A: I will come back to you on this once I have heard back from them.

Q7: Have you now also submitted the application for the ACM cladding fund?

A: Yes, we are awaiting a response. However following discussions with a contact at the GLA. I am not sure we will be able to still claim off this one given the deadline for claims was a long while back

Q8: Have you now submitted an application for the fire safety equipment/waking watch fund to cover the costs of the extra fire checks?

A: Not yet. We are still not clear on how this process is working. I am not aware the government have advised yet.

Q9: And just to note that we agreed to leave the EWS1 form until the work is completed to get a clean sign off, so this not a distraction to getting the work completed and the BSF funding won.

A: Yes, that is correct.

Further questions asked by members of the Facebook group, answered by Jo Hills

Q: We remain extremely concerned about the specifics of the service that Capital have been tasked with providing - it's vital this firm are competent, qualified and most importantly actually tasked with delivering the full scope of what is required.

A: The consultants are not yet formally signed to a contract as Aaron is still in negotiations with them, querying details of costs and specification. He is challenging them on cost and working out the correct scope of works. They have booked resources and cranes in the meantime and are just waiting for SCC pavement permits. We now expect work to begin next week or shortly after. They come recommended from H&S experts that we know, have done work on other Building Safety Fund jobs which the fund has found acceptable, and Raven’s lawyer has worked with them previously on a similar job and thought them reputable.

Nobel House Virtual Meeting 08.01.2021 at 11am.

Panel:

  • Jo Hills, Director of Assets & Services Raven Housing Trust (Chair) (JH)
  • Aaron Bloom, Property Manager Y&Y Management (AB)
  • Martin Andrews, Chair 4 Queensway Management (MA)
  • David Robb, Home Ownership Manager Raven Housing Trust (DR)
  • April Gargiulo (minutes)

Residents/Owners: Ben Rowe, Edward Paul Shrimpton, Robert Isaac, John Hooper, Dave & Bethan Langrish, Tony Rooth, Maddy Homewood, Mrs J Shah/Sarika Shah, Mark Luson, Michael Linden, Renee Boyce, Luke Tilleray, Olivia Hogman, Paul Nash, Andrew Walker, Kieran Carratt

Also attending: Gareth Owen & Teresa Craig from the Office of Crispin Blunt MP.

JH:

Introduction of panel.

Y&Y and Raven do not have new information to communicate today but are here to answer what questions we can and to hear residents’ concerns to feed into the process. We will also take away any questions that we cannot answer at this time and provide responses as the work progresses.

We are all in a difficult position, but this meeting allows us to move forward and needs to be positive to make this possible.

The context is changing daily, and we recommend you follow this on Twitter. Many residents may be more knowledgeable than we are, and we ask that everyone keeps sharing information in the owners Facebook group so that we can all stay best informed.

The Building Safety Fund has been extended, and the Daily Mail has started a campaign around this. The Government is also looking into a range of possible alternative funding mechanisms, including mortgages, to help spread costs out.

MA:

Introduction of organisations, and an explanation of who everyone is.

Y&Y is the manging agent, appointed by Avon Estates.

4QM represents the homeowners.

Raven Housing Trust represents the shared owners.

All of whom are working together to ensure the maintenance of the building is carried out correctly.

Questions:

Which agency approved the building design and cladding?

AB - The developer was Hollybrook.

Several questions were received around NHBC liability, particularly for a lack of general fire stops or cavity barriers identified affecting the Trespa cladding area in the JWA report. These appear to be construction faults that should be covered by NHBC. Can Y&Y confirm if and when they are lodging a claim with NHBC in respect of these items?

AB - We have lodged a claim with them a few days ago, however we not too sure at this point if the claim will be valid, given it was signed off by building regulations at the time and the materials may have met building standards at that point.

If the repairs are necessitated because Building Regulations were not followed, especially around fire breaks in cavity walls between properties, there may be recourse against the building firm who did not comply and the building regulations inspector who signed the building off. What is Y&Y doing to pursue this option, rather than charge leaseholders for repairs?

AB - If this was signed off by building control then there would have been no reason for the developers to have assumed there were any issues. We will always try every avenue; however, it is very unlikely that this will be a fault of the developers. It is also unlikely for Y&Y to take out a lawsuit against the developers for this.

Isn’t the freeholder responsible for the exterior?

AB - Yes, the freeholder is responsible for the exterior and communal areas of the building, which is why Y&Y carry out the works. But this is recharged to leaseholders through their service charges as per the terms of their leases.

Should 4QM seek legal clarification of the cost and liability, and push to secure firm timing from Y&Y/Avon?

MA – 4QM is not a business, we have no funds available. We can only ask Y&Y to carry out works on residents’ behalf.

What responsibility sits with RBBC (for planning permission and building control), Avon as the freeholder and seller of the flats, Y&Y who have maintained the property, NHBC, and the government?

AB – it is the freeholder’s responsibility to ensure the block meets the standards required as per the lease, and therefore to carry out the works required by the report. If there is an issue with the building construction, then NHBC will accept and proceed the claim. Unsure what the governments’ position would be.

Why has it taken so long for us to still not know what cladding we have, exactly how high the building is, what work is required and the potential costs?

AB – We were always under the impression that the block and the cladding had been confirmed and that it was deemed to be safe, following tests carried out by the GOV Testing together with Fire Risk Assessments from developers. Legislation changed over time, we got 2 parts of the building tested as per the original requirements and both came back clear. When MHCLG released new legislation, there was confusion with the ESW1 forms and the new requirements. We have since been in touch with numerous cladding experts.

When do you expect the cladding to be replaced?

AB – That would depend on the process, and how fast we can get quotations and funding approval. We would like to be able to provide timescales within the next few weeks but cannot confirm that at this stage. We may look at serving the first Section 20 notice shortly, to ensure that it is in place by the time we are able to look at quotations.

So to confirm, the cladding (apart from the small strip) is still meeting regulations and shouldn’t need replacing?

AB – correct, the main issues flagged up are on the fire risk assessment. The small strip of cladding does need removing, though.

The cladding that does need replacing is ACM, for which previous government funding has closed. There has been mention of retrospective applications, will you be looking into this?

AB – Yes, we have been in contact and made initial steps for retrospective funding. We have applied for both non-ACM and ACM funding.

What is the name of the company that you are currently using?

JH – We are still in negotiations at this point and have not signed contracts, so it is not appropriate for us to name them at this stage. They were very busy last year dealing with those that had already obtained funding and were prioritising them.

AB – We hope to issue agreements in the next few days, but we are still in negotiation and finalising.

Is this contractor a replacement for Warrington? Have we seen the Warrington Report?

AB – the Warrington testing was inconclusive, and the report was not shared previously due to the lack of reliability in it. We can share it, though. CLICK HERE

Must the Section 20 process be completed before applying for the Building Safety Fund? It would be far preferable to apply for the funding first, and then go through the Section 20 process only if funding is not achieved. Otherwise leaseholders will be making decisions on whether to object to work without knowing how much of the costs they will be liable for. This would cause further delays to the BSF application.

AB – we already took the decision to apply for the fund in case it was required. The Section 20 is not required for the fund; however, it speeds up the process in case the funding doesn’t go through. Once we have the report back and we are sure of the works required, we will start the Section 20 process.

Y&Y believe work may commence in May 2021. How can they be confident of this without knowing what is required?

AB – We don’t. We will only confirm dates once we have the full report back from the firm.

The BRE report in August 2017 states that the building does have cavity insulation. However, the JQA report from August 2020 states that in location 2 there is insulation that they do not believe “is manufactured from correctly certified fire-stop material” and in location 3 there is “no visible insulation, fire-stops or cavity barriers observed within the cladding zone in this location” Why is there a contradiction between these two reports, and what steps are now being undertaken to obtain the truth?

AB – This is the very reason we are bringing in a separate firm to carry out a report, to enable us to understand exactly what is needed. We do not want to be carrying out work that isn’t required, in case the other reports were incorrect.

Please could Y&Y confirm the details of the new consultants leading on this, and given that no Section 20 has been served confirm that their costs are therefore below £250 per property?

AB – Legal and surveyors fees do not require a Section 20, and therefore there will not be a consultation carried out for this. We are currently negotiating costs with them.

It is good to hear the latest consultants have been sent their formal proposal with timeline and costs this week. Will this proposal and timeline please be made available for residents to view ASAP, so we have a clearer picture of what is being planned, given the uncertainty?

AB – Once this is clarified we cannot see a reason why not, but regarding commercial confidentiality requirements we may not be able to release the whole proposal. Agreements should be signed within the next two weeks, hopefully.

Who will pay for the works?

AB – if the government funding and potential NHBC claim does not cover the entire cost, then the remainder will be recharged to leaseholders through their service charges.

What is the potential cost per property?

AB – At this stage, we aren’t sure. We don’t expect it to be of the scale that people will have seen in the news for some blocks, but residents should be prepared that it could be as high as £30-£40,000 per property.

There are two government funds, one for ACM cladding and one for non-ACM cladding, which fund have Y&Y registered for, or both?

AB – We have registered for the non-ACM fund already, however there is the potential for us to retrospectively apply for the ACM fund.

Last year, to get any funding, the applicant had to provide State Aid Forms for all owners who were subletting commercially, and confirmation of residence for all other owners. Given the issues with contacting is this on Y&Y’s radar to complete shortly, or is this no longer required?

AB – As far as we are aware, this is still required, and we would still expect each leaseholder to fill in the required documents.

The Building Safety Fund Application Guidance states that the initial pre-registration phase, applicants must be invited to apply for the full application. Specifically it states “Please do not attempt to apply until you have received this invitation” Y&Y have previously confirmed that they have pre-registered Nobel House for the fund during the pre-registration phase, but could they please confirm specifically that they have now received Nobel House’s invitation to apply for the First Stage Application?

AB – No we have not, however we have been in contact with them and are awaiting a response.

Currently, what are the costs associated with the additional fire safety checks that are happening weekly, and the reports that they have been commissioning?

AB – We have weekly monitoring in place, and currently the costs are around £430 per month.

Just prior to Christmas the government announced a further fund to pay for additional fire safety equipment or Waking Watches. I believe the latter does not apply to us, but the former might. Have steps been taken to apply for funds from this source for actions that may serve to reduce insurance costs?

AB - We are awaiting further details regarding the fund and are aware that the government are due to release further information on this shortly.

How will Raven be able to support shared ownerships if they cannot afford the bills like we have seen in the media, where the costs equal more than their share?

DR – shared owners are aware that the lease entitles us to recharge any service charge incurred. Our directors and Chief Exec are aware of the situation and are sympathetic with the residents’ situation. The costs are currently speculative, and so is funding, so we have no idea of potential service charges at this point. We will be having conversations with directors about what costs are passed on, and what repayment terms we can offer, but we cannot take any decisions at this point.

If, in the worst-case scenario, costs are recharged to leaseholders, how will this be charged and how much will come from the sinking fund?

AB – We will look to take a relatively large sum out of the sinking fund to assist with the costs, and we would hope to be able to provide staggered payment terms, but we cannot confirm yet.

If we do obtain a grant, can work begin before funding is received or do we have to wait for the funds?

AB – When we reach this stage, the government will set out clear timetables and payment dates to be agreed with the contractor. Payments are normally staggered once work has started.

Will Raven pay for the next valuation of my flat given they knew of this potential hurdle when going on the market?

DR – Our first awareness of any issues around cladding was when 4QM posted on Facebook on 18th August. Prior to that we had no knowledge to pass on, but if anyone feels that we misled them after that date then please contact me directly and we can discuss how to either investigate or proceed through the complaints process.

While Y&Y consider the Warrington report unacceptable, the findings are still of interest and would inform leaseholders some more, can the report be shared?

AB – Yes, we will share this with residents that would like it. CLICK HERE

When will there be a completed and signed off ESW1?

AB – Once the findings have been concluded, we can potentially obtain an ESW1 form, however it would only give the building a B2 rating which states that it is not compliant, plus it would cost additional money. We would prefer to leave this until the final works have been completed, as this would then generate a compliant ESW1.

As this continues, what process will there be for regular reporting to keep all parties informed?

AB – I think the best way forward would be bi-monthly reports collated between Y&Y, Raven and 4QM to be shared on social media, with interim updates of anything particularly useful in between from Raven via 4QM to the Facebook group and Raven’s website.

Whilst the communication between Raven and 4QM has been great, I am unhappy with the lack of communication from Y&Y.

JH – Y&Y have been fully engaged with all updates that have been produced by Raven and 4QM.

What representations have been made to local MP, councillors, or MP’s leading the national campaign on this?

Both JH and AB have been in contact with local councillors and the MP’s office who have enquired about the issue. The MP’s representative also attended the meeting and asked to be kept up dated as we progress.

Do you think we need a waking watch?

AB – Not according to our fire risk assessor, the weekly checks are enough.

Can Y&Y supply the Health & Safety and Fire Safety Policies affecting the building?

AB – Yes, we can supply the latest documents. CLICK HERE

Why have Y&Y involved firms and then dismissed their findings?

AB – We have been through numerous firms who have pulled out at various stages due to insurance policies not covering their risk, including a large number who have found that the block is just too big for them to deal with. There are too few firms in the country to carry out the work required to every building requiring an ESW1, which results in contractors carrying out work they shouldn’t be. We used the previous contractor on other buildings without issue, however it appears that Nobel House proved too complicated and their standards were not acceptable. We therefore felt it was necessary to obtain a new survey.

The two firms that have been dismissed, JWA and Warrington Fire, how much has it cost just for them to investigate and provide reports?

AB – They were not two separate companies, JWA hired Warrington to carry out their testing. I believe their costs were around £3,000 however I am aware that we are withholding payment due to their unacceptable work.

How much is in the sinking fund, and how much impact will it have on the overall cost of the work?

AB – Unsure how much is in it now, but it won’t have a massive impact on the total spending cost.

MA – the funds in there still have to cover the lighting and upcoming redecoration project.

Can the original construction company not provide answers regarding the types of materials used originally (in addition to an independent inspection)?

AB – Specifications were obtained from developers, however on reports they state items they assume to be there – but stipulate that intrusive surveys should be done for clarification.

If Y&Y have other buildings in similar situations, where are we in comparison to them? Are there lessons that can be learnt from other blocks?

AB – Y&Y deal with a range blocks, some of which do need complete re-cladding. They all have different levels of work required, and we take knowledge learnt on one building and share it across departments and teams.

Comment from attendee: Firstly, whether you are an investor in Nobel House, or live there, I would like to raise the point that this is still a fire risk. If there is a fire, there are three escape routes and I would recommend ensuring all tenants have working smoke alarms in order to avoid Grenfell v2. Secondly, I emailed Y&Y in 2017 shortly after Grenfell and got a different response on the cladding to what we now know today. If we are saying this affects thousands across the country, then we should surely start addressing a collective action in the first instance rather than paying out first. And thirdly, we appreciate those who are not getting paid to deal with this but are still putting in their time.

When was the Trespa cladding tested to be safe, and can we see the report?

AB – Yes you can see the report. It was originally done by the governments testing facility.

Mr Blunt’s fellow conservative MPs are proposing an amendment to the fire safety bill, which would prevent costs going up. Approximately 20 others have added their names, can we ask Mr Blunt to do so?

Teresa – Crispin Blunt has written to various constituents; however, he doesn’t believe the amendment is the right place for cladding costs to be covered. He has supported the “All Party Parliamentary Group set up for Leasehold and Commonhold Reform” to try and protect all leaseholders caught in this.

Jo Hills:

We will continue to provide updates going forward when we have them, and we will possibly convene again in the same way once we have more information. Please send in any further questions, and we will continue to respond to them.

Meeting Finished.

Nobel House Residents Update 05.01.21

Below is the weekly update on progress on the Nobel House cladding issue, including responses in red to specific questions that residents posed in recent days.

Q: After the unsatisfactory report from Warrington Fire in October, which has caused months of delay to the process so far, what checks and balances have been put in place to ensure that the new consultants will provide a complete and satisfactory service? Has a Statement of Works been agreed in advance, and if so, what does it cover?

A: Aaron at Y&Y has advised that they are yet to appoint a consultant but we do expect that due diligence is to be carried out before the formal appointment of any consultant. The consultants that have been reviewing the documentation and giving advice on the past reports and way forward, were unable to draw up a proposal earlier due to getting all the submissions done for clients who were able to submit for the 31st Dec Building Safety Fund deadline. These are now complete, so they have just sent a formal proposal with timeline and costs this weekend which Aaron at Y&Y is reviewing. Y&Y are also looking into other firms to ensure best value.

Q: Are Raven willing to cover valuations for sales that have fallen through when they next go onto the market? I suspect they had an inclination of the cladding issues when we decided to go on the market and we weren’t warned at all.

A: No, as with all purchases and sales Raven are neither regulated nor qualified to give advice or make recommendations. Raven was aware of the issues from 19/08, the same day as 4QM posted the issue on the residents’ Facebook group.

Q: I also personally have reservations about Y&Y potentially bypassing the Section 20 leaseholder consultation route. I completely agree that we need to seek government funding as quickly as possible as this is in everyone’s best interests, but I’m concerned about the subsequent implications for leaseholders if funding is not successfully achieved. There have been reports in the media of some applications receiving either partial funding or even no funding at all, so if we skip the Section 20 and then don’t receive funding, this could put us in a difficult position. However, at this point I’ll wait to see what Y&Y report on this issue before asking any specific questions. 

A: Aaron at Y&Y has clarified that once they have the full report back on the building cladding status, should works be required – which is most likely - they will serve the Section 20 right away in order to follow the process as early as they possibly can in case we do not receive the grant funding.

Nobel House Residents Update 22.12.20

Below is the weekly update on progress on the Nobel House cladding issue, including responses in red to specific questions that residents posed to Y&Y via the Nobel House Facebook Group.

We were all pleased to hear that there has been an extension to the Building Safety Fund which may give us a better chance of getting funding.  Y&Y and Raven jointly met with the consultants this week and they have confirmed that they should be able to get all documentation completed for full submission to the Building Safety Fund in March at the latest. 

Y&Y may need to seek dispensation from the normal Section 20 leaseholder consultation route to meet the timeframe to access the government funding. They will be seeking advice on this and advising back to us.

We are arranging a meeting for early January 2021 between residents, Y&Y and Raven and will confirm the date for this as soon as possible.

Responses from Y&Y (in red) to your questions:

Q: Why do Y&Y believe we will be eligible for the Government funding since the JWA report identified ACM cladding, but the Government Building Safety Fund is for non-ACM cladding systems? Is this to cover the missing fire breaks and cavity insulation in the non-ACM parts of the building?

A: We are not sure that we are going to be accepted however we see no reason not to be covered. This would cover all non-ACM issues and we hope that if potentially there is ACM, it will also be covered under the project however there are no guarantees at this stage. We are aware the timeline for the funding has been extended and this is good news.

Q: Why did the survey commissioned in 2018 following the Grenfell disaster not reveal the ACM cladding at the time? Could residents please be provided with a copy of this report, to supplement the JWA report from August 2020?

A: The report that took place looked at the main makeup of the cladding at the site. Samples were taken and sent off for testing which came back as non-ACM. See report below which was emailed on 14.8.17. We also have reports from our Fire Risk Assessor as below.

Q: In light of the new JWA report, have Y&Y made, or will they be making, an application to the ACM Cladding Remediation Fund, in addition to the Building Safety Fund which is for the non-ACM systems in the building?

A: The reason for the second report which we are looking to carry out, is that the JWA report was not detailed enough to make the full claim with. Therefore, we will only be able to look into options once this has been provided.

Q: Why did Y&Y/Avon decide to buy the freehold of Nobel House from the original developers in 2014 without carrying out detailed surveys, especially regarding building and fire safety regulations? This is in regard of the revelation that JWA has found a lack of fire stops and cavity barriers behind the cladding, a building regulation that has been mandatory for many years.

A: Y & Y manage the block on behalf of the Freeholders and 4QM. We have no information as to why the freeholders took the decision to purchase the block and under what terms, however I do know that if building regulations were signed off, there would have been no reason to query any further.

Q: Has the Trespa cladding that covers most of our building been tested for compliance to fire safety regulations. There are several versions of Trespa cladding, is ours the fire-resistant type?

A: As per response in point one. The cladding is non-ACM and is compliant as per our knowledge so far.

Q: Why doesn't Avon/Y&Y apply to NHBC for fire safety faults when our buildmark policy covers this until 2023? Y&Y recently updated that they did not believe NHBC would cover cladding issues created by recent legislation, but our understanding is that while this may be true, NHBC will cover the lack of fire stops and cavity barriers identified by JWA as they have been regulated for the last 30+ years.

A: We will relook at the possibility of going through the NHBC for this issue if required following the new assessment being carried out. At present and as advised previously, the report was not detailed enough to make the full claim with.

Q: Do Avon/Y&Y have specifications or detailed plans for Nobel House? Could these documents be shared with owners?

A: Y & Y do have Operation and Maintenance manuals. These documents are so large that they are unable to be sent by email. 

Nobel House Residents Update 14.12.20

Y&Y has heard back from the consultant who had been looking into doing the new report. They confirmed that they will only be able to begin work on reviewing the files Aaron sent them in w/c 14th Dec and that their fire engineers are fully booked until mid/late January.  Aaron is chasing up an alternative provider that he has been speaking with, to see if they can act any quicker.

As was mentioned in the Facebook group, politicians are looking at potential solutions to these issues and it is a good time to be informing your MP of our issues and asking for their support for the best solution for us. Raven has already asked Crispin Blunt for his support in getting an extension to the grant and increase to the fund size. It would help him to know how many people are concerned about this if you could let him know your thoughts direct too.

UPDATE 21st October 2020

We are aware that information has been shared that includes an update on the inspection that took place in July, of the exterior wall system at Nobel House, which has understandably raised further questions, please find below additional FAQs:

Q: I’ve heard that the initial report received means that lenders will now be in a position to approve new mortgages on Nobel House, is that the case?

A: We understand that this is not the case, but we are not qualified or regulated to give financial advice. We therefore recommend that you discuss with your own lender or financial adviser what lending options might be available.

Q: Does the new information supplied mean that we know what remedial work is required, how long it is going to take, how much it is going to cost and who is going to pay for it?

A: Unfortunately, no. Y&Y Management have confirmed that they have started the process of exploring the answers to these questions by seeking further advice from the external wall system expert that undertook this initial assessment. 

MANAGEMENT OF NOBEL HOUSE

Q: Who owns Nobel House?

A: The freehold for Nobel House is owned by Avon Ground Rents Ltd, Raven Housing Trust was granted a head lease for each of the flats it purchased, which then enabled us to grant sub-leases to our shared owners. This therefore means that Raven are also a leaseholder.

Q: Who is responsible for property management at Nobel House?

A: Y&Y Management has been appointed by Avon Ground Rents Ltd as managing agents for Nobel House, their responsibilities include:

  • Collection of service charge
  • Management of contractors
  • Compliance with relevant company and property law
  • Management of on-site staff
  • Preparation of budgets, financial forecasts and year-end accounts
  • Handling solicitors’ enquiries on the sale of individual properties
  • Engaging and management of maintenance contracts and repairs
  • Administration of insurance and communal claims
  • Compliance with health and safety legislation
  • Attending meetings
  • Regular property visits and inspections.

Q: Who do I contact at Y&Y Management if I have a query?

A: Aaron Bloom is Nobel House’s Property Manager. You can contact him by email at aaron@yymanagement.co.uk but please copy Raven in to any emails you send using the email address: homeownership@ravenht.org

Q: Who are 4QM?

A: Raven own a proportion of the homes at Nobel House. The properties that aren’t owned by Raven are represented by a Residents’ Management Company called, 4 Queensway Management (4QM).  We often work together in order to maintain the smooth running of the building. You may already know some of their current officers, details can be found here.  

MORTGAGE DIFFICULTIES

Q: I’ve heard that there may be a problem at the moment if I want to sell my flat at Nobel House, is that true?

A: Yes, some of you may have experienced or be aware of issues with mortgages. Lenders now require a building owner to produce an additional certificate (EWS1). The EWS1 certification process records in a consistent way external wall systems (cladding) on residential apartment buildings where the highest floor is 18m or more above ground level or where specific concerns exist. These are completed by a Chartered Fire Engineer.  We understand that Y&Y Management are in the process of trying to obtain this certificate on behalf of the building owner of Nobel House.  

Q: Why are EWS1 certificates required?

A: The Grenfell Tower fire has led to uncertainty around which buildings are safe.  A significant section of the housing market is being put on hold as mortgage lenders are nervous about lending people money against some buildings, until they have been tested for fire safety. 

Q: How long will this take?

A: We have asked Y&Y Management to give an indication of the timescales are but we do understand that this is very difficult. There are a limited number of qualified inspectors across the country that are working through thousands of requests. The inspection that is currently underway we know can be time-consuming and qualified inspectors are currently working through a significant backlog.

Q: Will this affect me if I want to re-mortgage or buy more shares in my home?

A: Yes, if you need to arrange a new mortgage on your home you will also be affected.

Q: What do I do if I can’t afford to live here and can’t sell either whilst this is being sorted out?

A: If as a result of the uncertainty currently at Nobel House you are worried about the financial implications you may face, please get in touch with us at homeownership@ravenht.org so that we can discuss your options and offer support through our money advice service, Moneywise.  Raven’s Moneywise service helps residents to find ways to maximise their income and reduce their expenditure.

Q. What are Raven doing to help?

A: We understand this situation is incredibly frustrating for all leaseholders. All across the country Housing Associations urgently want the problem to be resolved.  As well as directly affecting leaseholders, this is also impacting on housing associations’ ability buy and sell affordable housing to people in need.  

We are in regular contact with Y&Y Management.  We will of course continue to maintain a dialogue with them and our shared owners at Nobel House until this is satisfactorily resolved.

In the meantime, as a sector, Housing Associations are asking Government to work with mortgage lenders to find an urgent solution that will allow the housing market to operate normally during this period of uncertainty.  

Q: How often will you be updating me?

A: For the latest updates on Nobel House please visit our homeowners information page on here, which we will update with any new information as we receive it.

FIRE SAFETY

Q: Does this mean there is something wrong with Nobel House that means there is a greater risk of a fire that means it isn’t safe?

A: While we await the findings of the EWS Surveyor we have been supporting Y&Y to understand if any immediate action is required. We asked our fire safety consultant, Derek Andrews of Delco Safety who completed last Fire Risk Assessment for Y&Y, to advise on best practise and how to ensure the safety of all residents.

His response is as follows:

“Initially, having taken into account the reasonable standard of internal compartmentation evident during our last visit, the multiple means of escape provided from the common areas and the fire equipment in place (including smoke ventilation etc), I would not considered it to be necessary to make significant immediate changes whilst awaiting the test results for the external walling materials.  However, it would be advisable that the frequency of routine fire safety inspections at the property are increased whilst awaiting the results (I would suggest a minimum of weekly inspections  - in conjunction with weekly fire alarm testing and smoke vent activation tests would be appropriate).”

Following his advice weekly fire safety inspections will start week commencing 13th October 2020.

The probability of a fire occurring at Nobel House has not increased, and the block has many differences from the construction of Grenfell Tower.  However, the landscape has changed in the aftermath of the disaster and all owners of buildings over 18m high are taking extra precautions to ensure the safety of the buildings that they own.

Q: Who is responsible for fire safety at Nobel House?

A: As part of Y&Y Management’s responsibilities for compliance with health and safety they are responsible for fire safety at Nobel House

Q: What fire safety checks are in place?

A: Y&Y Management are required to arrange for a Fire Risk Assessment at Nobel House which is normally completed each year in the Autumn

Q: Is there anything I can do to stay safe in my home?

A: Please visit our website here to view our latest fire safety advice which also includes a link to more fire safety information on London Fire Brigade’s website.