In a situation where a building has a B1 EWS1 rating but the insurance companies are either refusing to quote or saying the cladding is a fire risk (due to the result of the intrusive survey for the EWS1 rating) and quadrupling insurance premium, is there anything that will help with this situation in the Building Safety Act or the secondary regulations when they come in or do you think it is something case law will have to address?
The amount an insurer charges for providing cover is a critical aspect of the underwriting process. The premium must be sufficient to cover expected claims but must also take into account the possibility that the insurer will have to access its capital reserve –it is risk assessment based and the greater the risk, the higher the premium. Historically, insurers of high-rise buildings would have only had to prepare for a loss caused by damage to just a few flats within a building. That is because the design and construction of that building, with the right materials and fire safety provisions in place, should have limited the spread of fire and allowed the damage to be contained –or at least make this an extremely low risk. Now we know that many buildings have been designed, built and signed off in a regulatory system that an independent Government review has found was not fit for purpose. Premiums will reduce overtime but will be dependent upon the perceived level of risk reducing as the regulatory regime, BSA and BSR become more established.
Related FAQs
The new rules for wearing face masks/face coverings in the workplace introduced on 23 September 2020 are as follows:
- Staff in retail, including shops, supermarkets and shopping centres, will now have to wear a face covering
- Staff in hospitality will now have to wear a face covering
- Guidance stating that face coverings and visors should be worn in close contact services, such as hairdressers and beauticians, will now become law
- Staff working on public transport and taxi drivers will continue to be advised to wear face coverings
You can take off your mask if:
- You who need to eat, drink, or take medication
- A police officer or other official asks you to
The Regulations do not require any prior agreement between an employer and employee that it was not reasonably practicable for holiday to be taken for it to be carried over.
However, if an employee requests holiday then an employer must have ‘good reason’ for refusing it due to coronavirus. The term ‘good reason’ is not defined so the Government will expect employers, employees and (if necessary on any dispute) the Courts to apply common sense.
The Regulations are not confined to key workers so could, in principle, be used by employers for a wider range of employees.
The Government guidance suggests that the following factors should be taken into account when considering whether it was reasonably practicable to take the leave in the relevant year:
- Whether the business has faced a significant increase in demand due to COVID-19 that would reasonably require the worker to continue to be at work and cannot be met through alternative practical measures.
- The extent to which the business’ workforce is disrupted by COVID-19 and the practical options available to the business to provide temporary cover of essential activities.
- The health of the worker and how soon they need to take a period of rest and relaxation.
- The length of time remaining in the worker’s leave year.
- The extent to which the worker taking leave would impact on wider society’s response to, and recovery from, the effects of COVID-19.
- The ability of the remainder of the available workforce to provide cover for the worker going on leave.
As long as you can demonstrate that you have exercised reasonable care in determining status you have discharged your obligations in that respect. However, if you are unable to demonstrate this, you may as the end user client be responsible for the contractor’s tax and NIC’s.
At the discretion of the lender, the Scheme may be used for unsecured lending for facilities of £250,000 and under.
Lenders were required to demonstrate lending additionality (i.e. lending that without the Scheme, wouldn’t have otherwise taken place). The Scheme has been extended to those businesses who would have previously met requirements for a commercial facility and would not have been eligible for CBILS. As a result it is suggested that all viable small businesses affected by Covid-19, and not just those unable to secure regular commercial financing, will now be eligible should they need finance to keep operating.
Primary Residential Property cannot be taken as Security under the Scheme. If the lender can offer finance on normal commercial terms without the need to make use of the Scheme, they will do so.
Some of these can be implemented by you, some need agreement or consultation and some depend on the wording of contracts. We’ll explain more in relation to each option.