Cladding costs must not fall on taxpayers

Robert Booth’s accurate analysis of the cladding issue (Government vow to fix cladding crisis unlikely to soothe UK residents, 10 February) nevertheless misses the point. It is not the government’s responsibility to fix this problem; it is their responsibility to make sure it’s fixed.

Why should the government (ie the taxpayer) have to shell out massive sums of money to bail out the actions of private developers? As it is only the government that has (or can create) the resources to do so, it should instead pay out the sums required to resolve the myriad safety issues, then pursue the developers to get it back. It should be made clear that if the money isn’t rapidly forthcoming, the individuals responsible will be prosecuted. There is no other situation where those responsible for seriously endangering life are allowed to get away with it, so what possible justification can there be in this case?
Mike Scott
Nottingham

The government is planning to use taxpayers’ money to resolve the scandal of flammable cladding. Are taxpayers responsible? No. The developers, the contractors and the suppliers of these materials are trying to avoid that responsibility. Let’s also not forget those ministers that allowed it to happen with the loosening of regulations and underfunding local authorities.

Financial news reports the obscene bonuses paid to developers and contractors. They should all be made to cover costs, not those unfortunate leaseholders. And the cost must cover full fire protection provision as part of the building regulations.
Linda Karlsen
Whitstable, Kent

The response to the disaster that killed 72 residents in Grenfell Tower nearly four years ago has been laggardly and inadequate (Boris Johnson accused of betraying homeowners over cladding crisis, 10 February). Surely a just and simple solution might be for the government, or a government-appointed body, to borrow the sums required at the present low rates of interest, compulsorily purchase the freeholds of all buildings clad in combustible material at their present much-diminished value, carry out the work to make them safe, and then sell them back at their new much higher value. There can be no justification for making lessees pay for repairs to buildings they do not own.
John Howes
London