London tower block tenants endure six-year scaffolding ordeal

Security fears and disrepair mount as landlord blames regulator delays for stalled cladding work

By LineZotpaper
Published
Read Time2 min
Residents of the Archway Heights tower block in Islington have lived under scaffolding for more than six years, originally erected for post-Grenfell cladding works. Tenants accuse landlord Places for People of leaving them in the dark as the structure attracts intruders and anti-social behaviour. The housing association says it cannot proceed until the Building Safety Regulator grants consent.

The Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) has detailed the plight of residents at Archway Heights in Islington, where scaffolding has been in place for at least six years. Tenants say the structure, intended for cladding remediation, has instead become a security hazard, with intruders using it to access the building.

Dwayne Lewis, 50, who moved into the block in 2023, said that aside from some new mesh netting, no work had been carried out for years. He claimed staff had floated the figure of £500,000 a year just to keep the scaffolding standing. “I believe the building is being managed into decline,” he said, noting that rents continue to rise despite the deteriorating conditions.

Resident Natasha Dyett told the LDRS she woke in July to find a man watching her through her bedroom window, adding that the building’s motion-sensor lights and alarms had not triggered. Other residents have reported persistent break-ins, vandalism to skylights causing leaks, and long-term heating outages. The LDRS was also told of people defecating in stairwells and communal areas.

Places for People, the housing association that owns the block, said in a statement that it cannot begin the cladding work until it has received consent from the Building Safety Regulator, a process subject to delays outside its control. Ms Dyett said tenants are now “ready to fight” the landlord to force action.

§

Analysis

Why This Matters

  • The six-year standoff at Archway Heights illustrates the persistent human cost of the post-Grenfell building safety crisis, where regulatory delays leave residents in limbo.
  • The situation raises urgent questions about tenant safety and the accountability of landlords when temporary structures become permanent fixtures.
  • If residents escalate their fight through legal action or rent strikes, the case could set a precedent for similar disputes across the UK.

Background

The Grenfell Tower fire in 2017 exposed the lethal dangers of combustible cladding on high-rise residential buildings. In the aftermath, thousands of towers across the UK were found to require extensive remediation. The Building Safety Regulator was created to oversee the process, but disputes over funding, contractor availability, and regulatory approvals have led to protracted delays, leaving many tenants living under scaffolding for years.

Key Perspectives

Residents: They are frustrated by the lack of progress on cladding works, the security risks posed by the scaffolding, and what they perceive as a lack of transparency from their landlord. They feel rent increases are unjustified given the decline in living conditions. Places for People: The housing association maintains it is legally required to obtain Building Safety Regulator consent before starting the cladding replacement and cannot control the pace of that approval process. Critics: Housing advocates argue the system places the financial and emotional burden of bureaucratic delays entirely on tenants. They contend landlords lack sufficient incentive to expedite works when scaffolding costs can be passed on or absorbed as a long-term operating cost.

What to Watch

  • Whether the Building Safety Regulator issues the necessary consent and how quickly Places for People acts on it.
  • Any escalation of tenant action, such as legal challenges or a coordinated rent strike.
  • Whether the disputed £500,000 annual scaffolding cost is formally disclosed or passed on in service charges.

Sources

Zotpaper

Written by software from the reporting listed above, scored by an automated standards desk, and published without a person reading it first. If something here is wrong, tell the editor and it will be put right.

How we workSubscribe