Overview

This Lunch & Learn webinar, hosted by Matt Hodges-Long and featuring guest speaker Melisa White, discusses decants and evacuations due to fire safety and structural issues. They highlighted the emotional and practical impact on residents, the lack of support, challenges in providing “like-for-like” accommodation, and hidden costs for evacuees. Key talking points included the proposal for a “disruption manager” role, financial burdens on residents, and leaseholder rights regarding developer obligations and increased insurance premiums.

Here are the key takeaways from the discussion:

Details

• Introduction – Matt Hodges-Long outlined the agenda, which included discussions on decants and evacuations, the legal powers of prohibition, and the scale of the problem. He stated the webinar would also discuss the human impact of these events, current values placed on life in such situations, and the potential role of a “disruption manager”.
• Structural Issues as a Cause for Decants – Melisa White highlighted that her building, along with others on the Building Safety Register’s list, experienced structural issues, emphasising that these issues are a significant reason for decants.
• Melissa White’s Background and “Kindstay” Initiative – Matt introduced Melisa White as the founder of Kindstay and someone personally affected by a prohibition notice. Melisa, who came from a technology background, explained that she founded Kindstay to provide emergency, high-quality accommodation for residents affected by building issues and to support their well-being through a wellness hub. She aims to help residents maintain a healthy mindset during disruptions, anxiety, and change, after seeing the challenges her grandparents faced as leaseholders.
• Tracking Prohibitions and Decants – Matt explained that the detailed tracking of decants began in early 2021 due to uncertainties about how often such events occurred. BSR developed a “post-Grenfell prohibition timeline/tracker” by analysing press reports, which has revealed a pattern of buildings being prohibited for fire or structural reasons, affecting over 14,000 residents across 54-55 blocks since June 2017.
• The Emotional and Practical Impact on Residents – Melisa expressed concern that residents are often notified about decants at the last minute, causing significant anxiety and stress despite preparations being made months in advance. Matt acknowledged the “spreadsheet thinking” that can dehumanise the data, emphasising that each line represents real people whose lives are turned upside down. He highlighted a lack of follow-up on affected residents, which hinders learning and improvement.
• Humanity in Decant Processes – Matt stressed the importance of humanity in the decant process, relating it to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, particularly the foundational needs for shelter, safety, and security. Melisa argued that the property industry often lacks consideration for the human impact of disruptions, contrasting it with consumer laws for faulty products. She highlighted that residents’ varied needs, such as those of the elderly, young children, or caregivers, are often overlooked.
• Lack of Support and Emotional Neglect – Melisa noted the absence of personal check-ins from authorities throughout her decant experience, emphasising that a simple phone call asking about residents’ well-being could make a significant difference. She recounted working with a consulting firm whose developer prioritised resident support from the outset, believing that feeling heard and cared for could vastly improve residents’ reactions to the situation.
• Challenges in Providing “Like-for-Like” Accommodation – Matt introduced the concept of “like-for-like” accommodation, using an analogy of trading a luxury car for a basic one, questioning whether residents receive comparable housing. Melisa stated that providers often believe they are offering adequate alternatives, but third-party agents inflate prices, leading to residents being placed in substandard housing. She highlighted instances where commissions dictated hotel choices, preventing residents from securing better local options at the same rate.
• Hidden Costs and Long-Term Impacts for Evacuees – Melisa discussed the hidden financial costs for evacuees, including increased expenses for food, transport, and temporary accommodation, in addition to emotional tolls. She noted that residents continue to pay high service charges without receiving services. Matt added that asset value is typically stagnant, as no one would buy a flat in a prohibited building, further impacting residents financially.
• The Role of a Disruption Manager – Matt proposed the creation of a “disruption manager” role within project teams, advocating for residents and ensuring their well-being is considered during remediation or decant processes. Melisa supported the idea, noting that while some managing agents volunteer for this role, their relationships with residents are often strained, and their costs are disproportionate to the value delivered. She suggested leveraging local councils’ welfare teams and emphasised that such a role, although an additional cost, would ultimately benefit developers by mitigating negative publicity.
• Financial Burdens and Communication in Building Management – Melisa highlighted significant financial aspects in managing buildings, such as high mortgage rates and increasing building insurance due to new risks, questioning who should bear the service charges. She emphasised the importance of clear communication from a resident or disruption manager to residents in layman’s terms regarding technical work and project management, particularly concerning financial burdens, to alleviate anxiety.
• Leaseholder Rights and Developer Obligations – Matt expressed uncertainty regarding the specific rights of leaseholders when issues arise, noting the lack of clear methods for compensation or alternative accommodation. Melisa, however, stated that a leasehold solicitor advised her that developers are obligated to ensure no financial loss is experienced by leaseholders, covering lost income for rent, although she questioned if this applied universally. Matt also brought up the issue of buildings not covered by developer contracts, suggesting potential reliance on taxpayer funding for these situations.
• Insurance Premium Increases and Unoccupiable Buildings – Melisa mentioned a neighbouring building where insurance policies tripled, with the increased cost passed on to leaseholders, and the developer refused to cover it. Matt Hodges-Long acknowledged the difficulty in attributing insurance premium increases solely to developer defects, as market adjustments could also play a role, making it challenging to unpick the exact reasons for the cost. They both agreed that leaseholders are ultimately bearing the financial burden of these increased premiums, even for buildings they cannot occupy.
• Potential Solutions and Future Discussions – Matt noted past discussions about a potential government-backed insurance pool for buildings affected by the building safety crisis, which did not materialise due to state reluctance to incur liability. He concluded the discussion by reiterating the perceived injustice of leaseholders paying significantly higher insurance premiums for unoccupiable buildings, suggesting that large developers should cover these costs rather than “nickel and dime” them, despite the financial impact on their bottom line.
• Date of Next Lunch & Learn Webinar – The meeting concluded with an announcement for the next session on Thursday, 6th November.

Summary

This webinar explored the growing issue of building decants and evacuations caused by structural and fire safety problems, affecting thousands of residents since Grenfell. Melisa White, founder of Kindstay, shared her personal experience of a prohibition notice and her subsequent initiative to support displaced residents through emergency accommodation and mental well-being services. The discussion highlighted the severe emotional, financial, and logistical impacts of sudden decants, the lack of empathy and follow-up from authorities, and the frequent mismatch between promised and actual “like-for-like” accommodation. Both speakers emphasised the need for greater humanity in the process, suggesting the introduction of a “disruption manager” role to advocate for residents and improve communication. They also examined issues around inflated costs, rising insurance premiums, unclear leaseholder rights, and insufficient developer accountability, concluding that stronger protections and fairer financial responsibilities are essential for those affected by unsafe or uninhabitable buildings.