hearing, was whether or not the greater manchester fire and rescue lease allowed for the recovery of service (“gmfrs”) in the wake of these costs from the leaseholders the grenfell fire, implemented a and whether or not there was any waking fire watch and looked to the other plausible source of funds leaseholders to pay the costs of the that could be used to pay for it. same through the service charge. in in respect of the first question, this case, the ftt found that the and with reference to the decision dclg and gmfrs were competent in credit suisse v beegas (1994) authorities for the purpose of the about the scope of the words leases and therefore, in the light of used in the lease which contained the terms of the leases, the costs the landlord’s maintenance associated with the waking fire obligations, it was decided that the watch were recoverable from the replacement of the cladding fell leaseholders. the cost of a waking within the landlord’s obligations fire watch was also in issue in the as to “rectifying and making good citiscape case and again it was any inherent structural defects”. decided that the cost was it was argued by the recoverable from the leaseholders leaseholders that the landlord under the terms of the lease. should attempt to recover any such there have also been a spate costs from the building insurance. of cases brought to the ftt by however, this wasn’t accepted and landlords asking for the service the ftt found that the leaseholders charge consultation requirements would have to pay the service to be relaxed in respect of contracts charges but that it was open to for a waking fire watch and the them to pursue claims against replacement of cladding on the various other parties, including basis that the need is urgent. the cladding manufacturers, the most of these cases have been council’s building inspector or decided in the landlords’ favour. even central government, to try it doesn’t however appear that and recover these sums by way this is the end of the story. most of damages. it is anticipated that council owned properties that have this decision will have far reaching acm cladding are being re-clad consequences for those 200 at no cost to the leaseholders. odd other blocks that have been however, there has yet to be any affected. i expect that this is one of requirement on private landlords to many decisions of its kind to come. follow suit. central government are it isn’t just the replacement of coming under increasing pressure to the acm cladding which has been put in place some funding to assist causing concern. many landlords private landlords and leaseholders have been advised, and some with the recladding of the affected required, to implement a waking blocks and i imagine that pressure fire watch prior to the cladding is only going to continue to mount being removed to avoid any as we pass the first year anniversary imminent risk of a fire in the of the grenfell tower tragedy. affected blocks. in the case of e&j ground rents no. 11 llp and various leaseholders of fresh apartments, salford (“salford case”), although no enforcement notice or prohibition order had been served, the landlord, on the basis of the guidance produced by the dclg and the “ the ftt found that the leaseholders would have to pay the service charges.” “ many landlords have been advised, and some required, to implement a waking fire watch prior to the cladding being removed to avoid any imminent risk of a fire in the affected blocks.” pg lore summer 2018 7