MQ ain’t broke! (in our opinion)
There was a nice article written in todays (21st March 2021) Sunday Times by Martina Lees about leaseholders paying for what may be unnecessary work as a result of EWS1. Millennium Quay even got a mention, with a section on the £4.5k MQ leaseholders may be footing for replacing timber decking on balconies, which appears now not to be needed. It appears Martina may also be a reader of imqra.com 🙂
It is clear from the Times Article, leaseholders around the country are questioning the EWS1 certifications that they are getting from their Management Agents, most of whom are unsurprisingly, collecting large fees for the admin involved in this process. Imqra.com over the last 2-3 weeks have also been investigating the accuracy of reports produced for MQ. Summary of which is provided in this blog.
Independent review of Hydrock fire report raises doubts on accuracy of B2 rating
Through our network, we found a fire safety consultancy that mainly provides safety advice for churches and community halls around South England. We asked them to review the original Hydrock report and they found a number of inaccuracies and inconsistencies, which are covered in their review report.
We then asked them if they could give an opinion on what the EWS1 rating for MQ could be given the available information. They concluded that this could be a B1 and with further information could be even higher. Their opinion can be found here.
What did the government’s building safety fund conclude?
We thought it would also be interesting to see what the Government building safety fund concluded about MQ’s original application for funding last year. After all, one would assume that the Government team would be reviewing and assessing buildings day in and day out, be independent from any fees for work & likely focused on getting funding to those buildings that actually need it most. Surely, they would know what is safe or not?
We requested from MQ A-G, documentation giving the reason for the Government’s rejection and the original application for the fund. Worryingly, we were told that the original application made at the end of 2020 had been “lost”. We did get hold of the rejection letter from the building safety fund (Residents can request this letter from MQ A-G or Rendall & Rittner). This clearly stated that the Government’s safety advisors, having reviewed the application, concluded that the type of cladding installed at MQ was compliant to building regulations and stated that the evidence provided on the cladding showed that it had “achieved a BR135 certificate via a BS8414 test”.
So to summarise, even the Government’s own experts having reviewed the cladding system via MQ’s application last year is indicating it complies to all regulations. I.e. it’s safe!
Where does this leave MQ?
In the opinion of this author, all the evidence shows that MQ ain’t broke! An independent review of the fire safety report produced for MQ casts doubts on the accuracy of the B2 rating for the development. Building safety experts in the Government stated in response to MQ’s original application, now lost, that the cladding installed is compliant with BR135. RICs latest guidance states our balconies are safe. So it appears that the only people who think MQ is broke and needs fixing, at leaseholders expense, are those that have some fees or commission to gain as a result. Based on this, would the most sensible course of action not be to conduct a second EWS1, independently from R&R and of the current MQ A-G board?
Note: this article is the honest opinion of the author and based on available known facts at the time of writing. CYK Services Ltd did not charge for the report and opinion provided they did this on a pro bono basis.