Homeowners trapped in crumbling new-build flats have hung a new banner on their building, saying government failures have cost them millions of pounds.
First-time buyers who bought apartments at 53 Agar Grove in Camden Town have been told by surveyors that their block is moving and may have to be demolished.
The building – less than five years old – has been plagued by moving walls, collapsing ceilings and water leaks.
Their homes have been valued at £0 and deemed “uninsurable”.
After a report by the Ham&High this spring, their plight generated national headlines, prompting a visit from Michael Gove, Secretary of State for the Department of Levelling-Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC).
But months on, the buyers say there is no resolution in sight.
Last week they hung a huge banner from their windows, reading: “Give us our money back Gove, deregulation defrauded us”.
“There’s a massive failure in building regulation,” said Daniel Bruce, one of three buyers who say they have already spent more than £300,000 on legal bills over their predicament.
“Nobody is on the side of the homebuyer. Nobody seems to be enforcing anything. Any solutions in law are exorbitantly expensive,” he said.
“We have been quoted about £450,000 to take it to court. People don’t have that sort of money.
“So the building sector is free to harm people with impunity and there’s no meaningful regulation or assistance from the government or the law.
“There is no protection for homebuyers. Building regulations don’t need to be followed and a structural warranty is worthless.”
It isn’t just the buyers who think this.
During a recent episode of BBC1’s Rip Off Britain, Mr Gove called the residents’ situation “absolutely appalling” and “unacceptable”
Likening the “terrible” building to “a set from Crossroads”, he said: “You get more consumer protection when you buy a washing machine than when you buy your own home.”
But despite Mr Gove’s interest in their case, said Daniel, “There’s been no real progress – no material difference.
“Despite the rhetoric of pursuing creative solutions and so on, nobody has even suggested to us any sort of viable solution.
“It still feels like we’re the ones doing all the work. We wish someone would just go in to bat for us.”
The buyers feel that the Government is afraid to upset developers, Daniel says.
“Housebuilding is something political parties like to shout about and it seems like they don’t want to do anything that will irritate the industry. It already feels like the industry holds them to ransom slightly.”
Daniel praised the Ham&High, saying: “Of all the action’s we’ve taken, going to the media, by far, has been the most valuable.
“The Ham&High need to take a lot of credit because you’re really what kicked off all the media attention. Yours was the only story to go into as much depth as you did.”
But, he said, he and his fellow buyers remain in limbo despite the national attention.
They are calling on the Government to step in, “make them whole” and then sort the situation out with the various companies involved.
“We should have already been removed from this situation,” said Daniel.
“It should be a problem now between those who built and insured the building.
“We are approaching our fifth year. I don’t see how any solution that would leave us worrying about this for even one more day could be considered reasonable.
“I’ve spent my late 30s stuck fighting because somebody was able to build a horrifically damaged property and sell it to me and I’m wholly unprotected in that situation.”
The DLUHC has instigated regulatory investigations.
It reported insurer Acasta European Insurance Company Ltd to the Financial Conduct Authority and reported Salus Approved Inspectors, which signed off the building, to its industry regulator CICAIR.
The DLUHC said: “The secretary of state has been absolutely clear that those who should have helped leaseholders have all moved too slowly and this is simply not good enough.
“Acasta must meet its warranty obligations swiftly so the leaseholders, who have suffered unjustly, can get on with their lives.”
Acasta said it “remains committed to fulfilling its obligations”.
“We continue to engage with the relevant owners regarding progression and resolution of this matter,” it said.
“Unfortunately, we are not in a position to share the content of our substantive latest correspondence."
Salus has previously said it is prepared to investigate and have meaningful discussions once it has seen all relevant evidence.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here