Independent Leyton Orient Forum

Dunners wrote: ↑Fri Apr 04, 2025 7:13 am You've already been put right on the above points of which you appear to remain unsure. In short: yes.

Discussion here: viewtopic.php?p=419976#p419976

Do all flats have to have these FRAEWs/EWS1 thing done?

Long slender neck wrote: ↑Sat Apr 05, 2025 9:25 pm

Dunners wrote: ↑Fri Apr 04, 2025 7:13 am You've already been put right on the above points of which you appear to remain unsure. In short: yes.

Discussion here: viewtopic.php?p=419976#p419976

Do all flats have to have these FRAEWs/EWS1 thing done?

If the building is 11 metres or more in height, then yes. It's not a legal requirement on smaller buildings but, if they are assessed as higher risk, then insurance or mortgage companies may insist on one or impose punitive premiums or even refuse policies.

Long slender neck wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 6:37 pm Someone i know is planning to downsize to a flat, but isnt this a bit dodgy?

Off the top of my head, the risks i can think of are

Cladding issues
Service charges
New build defects
Bills for repairs etc

Anything else?

Never by ‘shared ownership’. They are practically unsalable.
Second class home ownership

Dunners wrote: ↑Sun Apr 06, 2025 7:20 am

Long slender neck wrote: ↑Sat Apr 05, 2025 9:25 pm

Dunners wrote: ↑Fri Apr 04, 2025 7:13 am You've already been put right on the above points of which you appear to remain unsure. In short: yes.

Discussion here: viewtopic.php?p=419976#p419976

Do all flats have to have these FRAEWs/EWS1 thing done?

If the building is 11 metres or more in height, then yes. It's not a legal requirement on smaller buildings but, if they are assessed as higher risk, then insurance or mortgage companies may insist on one or impose punitive premiums or even refuse policies.

Ours is a low rise and several buyers' lenders have insisted on EWS1 forms. We've got them, so it's alright - for now - but some seem more spooked than others.

Proposition Joe wrote: ↑Tue Apr 08, 2025 8:43 am

Dunners wrote: ↑Sun Apr 06, 2025 7:20 am

Long slender neck wrote: ↑Sat Apr 05, 2025 9:25 pm

Do all flats have to have these FRAEWs/EWS1 thing done?

If the building is 11 metres or more in height, then yes. It's not a legal requirement on smaller buildings but, if they are assessed as higher risk, then insurance or mortgage companies may insist on one or impose punitive premiums or even refuse policies.

Ours is a low rise and several buyers' lenders have insisted on EWS1 forms. We've got them, so it's alright - for now - but some seem more spooked than others.

Did the freeholder pass on the cost to the leaseholers or pay it themselves for the EWS form?

Proposition Joe wrote: ↑Tue Apr 08, 2025 8:43 am

Dunners wrote: ↑Sun Apr 06, 2025 7:20 am

Long slender neck wrote: ↑Sat Apr 05, 2025 9:25 pm

Do all flats have to have these FRAEWs/EWS1 thing done?

If the building is 11 metres or more in height, then yes. It's not a legal requirement on smaller buildings but, if they are assessed as higher risk, then insurance or mortgage companies may insist on one or impose punitive premiums or even refuse policies.

Ours is a low rise and several buyers' lenders have insisted on EWS1 forms. We've got them, so it's alright - for now - but some seem more spooked than others.

There's tsunami coming for <11meter buildings. In your case, is there an identified risk to the building, such as combustible cladding or insulation? That's usually why they will request an EWS1 for low rise buildings. You're fortunate to have the EWS1 but just a few things to flag:

1 - If it was carried out by a company called TriFire, and signed off by an engineer called Adam Kiziak. Kiziak has been suspended by the Institute of Fire Engineers pending investigation for alleged breach of its code of conduct and failing to have adequate insurances in place. This is resulting in lenders and insurers rejecting EWS1s signed by him. You can read more about this here: www.engc.org.uk/news/press-releases/202 ... i-fire-ltd

2 - If the building has been awarded a B1 rating, insurers are beginning to react negatively. Their view is - why should they accept the risk of combustible cladding or insulation? So they are implementing punitive hikes in buildings insurance premiums until any remediation is undertaken (which will be very expensive and the building will not qualify for the government funding schemes).

If you have an A1 rating, then you are fine.

Was aware of the TriFire stuff as it's relevant at work but holy sh!t, hadn't occured to me to check our own place. Will do some digging.

Dunners wrote: ↑Tue Apr 08, 2025 9:11 am

Proposition Joe wrote: ↑Tue Apr 08, 2025 8:43 am

Dunners wrote: ↑Sun Apr 06, 2025 7:20 am

If the building is 11 metres or more in height, then yes. It's not a legal requirement on smaller buildings but, if they are assessed as higher risk, then insurance or mortgage companies may insist on one or impose punitive premiums or even refuse policies.

Ours is a low rise and several buyers' lenders have insisted on EWS1 forms. We've got them, so it's alright - for now - but some seem more spooked than others.

There's tsunami coming for <11meter buildings. In your case, is there an identified risk to the building, such as combustible cladding or insulation? That's usually why they will request an EWS1 for low rise buildings. You're fortunate to have the EWS1 but just a few things to flag:

1 - If it was carried out by a company called TriFire, and signed off by an engineer called Adam Kiziak. Kiziak has been suspended by the Institute of Fire Engineers pending investigation for alleged breach of its code of conduct and failing to have adequate insurances in place. This is resulting in lenders and insurers rejecting EWS1s signed by him. You can read more about this here: www.engc.org.uk/news/press-releases/202 ... i-fire-ltd

2 - If the building has been awarded a B1 rating, insurers are beginning to react negatively. Their view is - why should they accept the risk of combustible cladding or insulation? So they are implementing punitive hikes in buildings insurance premiums until any remediation is undertaken (which will be very expensive and the building will not qualify for the government funding schemes).

If you have an A1 rating, then you are fine.

have you a view on where the problems are likely to be concentrated Dunners - older buildings/new-builds/specific builders/the north/the south-east etc etc?

east saxon gas wrote: ↑Thu Apr 10, 2025 1:41 pm

Dunners wrote: ↑Tue Apr 08, 2025 9:11 am

Proposition Joe wrote: ↑Tue Apr 08, 2025 8:43 am

Ours is a low rise and several buyers' lenders have insisted on EWS1 forms. We've got them, so it's alright - for now - but some seem more spooked than others.

There's tsunami coming for <11meter buildings. In your case, is there an identified risk to the building, such as combustible cladding or insulation? That's usually why they will request an EWS1 for low rise buildings. You're fortunate to have the EWS1 but just a few things to flag:

1 - If it was carried out by a company called TriFire, and signed off by an engineer called Adam Kiziak. Kiziak has been suspended by the Institute of Fire Engineers pending investigation for alleged breach of its code of conduct and failing to have adequate insurances in place. This is resulting in lenders and insurers rejecting EWS1s signed by him. You can read more about this here: www.engc.org.uk/news/press-releases/202 ... i-fire-ltd

2 - If the building has been awarded a B1 rating, insurers are beginning to react negatively. Their view is - why should they accept the risk of combustible cladding or insulation? So they are implementing punitive hikes in buildings insurance premiums until any remediation is undertaken (which will be very expensive and the building will not qualify for the government funding schemes).

If you have an A1 rating, then you are fine.

have you a view on where the problems are likely to be concentrated Dunners - older buildings/new-builds/specific builders/the north/the south-east etc etc?

The issue of defective external wall systems (i.e. cladding, combustible insulation materials) is mainly related to newer building or buildings that have been refurbished in recent years. There are no definitive cut-off dates for when things turned to sh*t, but it been a gradual process during the era of deregulated building control (so, anything from mid-90s onwards can be an issue).

But you can still get problems with older buildings, especially in pre-1990 house conversions, where there’s next to zero insulation between floors. There’s also no geographical distinction, but most blocks of flats tend to be in the larger city centres, especially in London and some of the surrounding commuter towns.

Obviously, there’s no risk-free option, but I’d always look for older, purpose-built blocks, with brick construction and under 11meters in height. Also, try and reduce the reliance on communal facilities, such as centralised heat and hot water systems, as these just add to the general life-cycle costs and I very much doubt any building’s reserves are being set to match a capital expenditure plan (which probably won’t have been completed anyway).

The Guardian have got onto the fraudulent EWS1 issue....

'The building has a valid fire risk certificate signed by Adam Kiziak of Tri Fire, but because he was later suspended pending investigation, lenders of prospective buyers view my flat as risky.'

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2025/ ... unsaleable