All of Surrey's MPs voted against protecting leaseholders from having to foot the bill for fire safety defects, despite flats in Redhill, Woking and Elmbridge being caught up in the fire safety crisis.
The defeated Lords amendment on the Fire Safety Bill on March 22 was intended to stop building owners passing on the costs.
On the same day, residents of the six-storey Nobel House in Redhill discovered they will have to pay over £230 a month for their building to have a waking watch, with people patrolling all hours of the day and night to seek out fire and raise the alarm if necessary.
"I'm working from home so I'm in the building 24/7; it's a real risk and a worry," said Olivia Hogman, who has a shared ownership flat there.
The cost of the waking watch has been estimated at £6,864 a week - £236 a month shared between the 126 flats - and Raven Housing Trust has confirmed this cost will fall to leaseholders. It will stay in place until an LD5 fire alarm system can be installed.
The Government has a £30 million waking watch relief fund to pay for installing fire alarm systems in high-rise buildings with cladding - but the closing date for applications was two weeks ago.
Miss Hogman, speaking for 4 Queensway Management Limited, which represents leaseholders at Nobel House, said: "We don't know how long 'short-term' is. Potentially we'll have to pay for the alarm as the fund has now closed and there's no guarantee they'll accept a late application.
"So we have no idea about the escalating costs. Not everyone has a never-ending pool of money."
Most Read
A spokesperson for Y&Y Management, who manage the building, said: "We are yet to receive the full report following a survey of the building which will enable us to plan and commission any remedial works.
"We are in discussions with the local MP and the relevant Government funds to secure as much support for leaseholders as possible."
They think the money made available by the Government is "still not adequate" to match the scale of the crisis nationwide, which they say is "much larger than first recognised".
The spokesperson added: "Many of these properties were bought from developers in good faith and were compliant with regulations at the time, but with the changes in regulations following the Grenfell tragedy, Government must not leave leaseholders footing the bill."
He warned that not protecting leaseholders could "do irreparable damage to the UK housing market".
An extra £3.5 billion was announced by the Government last month to replace unsafe cladding on buildings taller than 18 metres, six storeys and above.
However, the fund is only to fix cladding and not other fire safety issues, such as timber balconies.
Don’t miss
Many MPs have argued that without last week's Lords amendment, leaseholders forced to pay for these defects could be made bankrupt and left homeless.
But all of Surrey's MPs voted in line with housing minister Christopher Pincher, who said it was "unworkable and impractical" and warned it could lead to drawn out court proceedings that would cost the taxpayer and delay remediation work.
Why did Surrey’s MPs vote against it?
Woking MP Jonathan Lord said: "I support the Government's spending of £5 billion of taxpayer money on sorting out the cladding on all our taller buildings, but it is simply not fair or practicable to ask the taxpayer to pay for each and every fire safety defect in every building up and down the land."
Labour county councillor Robert Evans said leaseholders "forced to pay to fix fire safety problems that were not of their making" had been "left high and dry by this vote".
"Compared with what we are rightly paying for Covid-19 measures, this [repair bill] is nothing," he said.
Bethan Langrish lives in Addlestone but is still paying for the flat at Nobel House where she lived before getting married, because without a certificate validating its fire safety she is unable to sell it.
After having an online meeting with her MP, Ben Spencer, she said: "He sounded very sympathetic, but in the end just toed the line and didn't vote to support his residents. As a former mental health doctor, he should know the strain this is causing people.
"To me, this was a chance for the Conservative government to help people across Surrey to sleep at night knowing they would be protected in law from fire safety costs they did not cause.
"Instead, Mr Spencer and his colleagues have broken their promise to protect leaseholders, and it is blameless people, like me and others, who will pay the price."
Dr Spencer, MP for Runnymede and Weybridge, said he had been contacted by many constituents about remedial works required on properties and would be taking evidence of cases he supports to the Government ahead of their Building Safety Bill.
"I am always happy to look into their personal circumstances and engage with the developer or management company on their behalf," he said.
He said the Fire Safety Bill "did not cover the complex issues around remedial works" and that "measures to address this will be brought forward in the Building Safety Bill later this year".
"While well intentioned, the amendments to the Fire Safety Bill could actually have delayed the implementation of more robust fire safety measures for medium and high-rise buildings," he added.
"I of course understand that this situation has caused incredible anxiety for those directly affected, and they would like to see an immediate resolution.
"Unfortunately there remains a huge amount of uncertainty regarding the extent and cost of works, and liability, and in addition varying approaches are being taken between different buildings and developers.
"Any government scheme needs the full facts to ensure it can effectively both support leaseholders and also protect the taxpayer."
Labour MP Hilary Benn said in the Commons: "To stand up and say, 'I'm sorry but this isn't the right bill', I think demonstrates a failure to understand the nightmare that so many of the people that we represent are living through."
MP Bob Blackman, one of the 33 Conservative rebels who voted for the amendment, said: "The Building Safety Bill will take at least 18 months to possibly two years to bring to fruition. Leaseholders do not have the time to wait for us to deliberate."
Reigate MP Crispin Blunt and Esher and Walton MP Dominic Raab did not respond to a request for comment.
Better news for Woking
Elsewhere in Surrey, Eastgate in Woking has had a 24-hour waking watch in place for nearly a year-and-a-half, since the nine-storey building near the railway station was discovered to have unsafe cladding.
Southern Housing Group (SHG), which owns and manages the building, was last week delighted to learn that its application to the government's Building Safety Fund was successful, meaning they can now get on and remediate their cladding.
Suzanne Horsley, SHG's director of building safety, said: "We have worked hard to ensure that our residents have been kept fully informed throughout this process.
"We are already in close liaison with the local authority so that the programme of work can be agreed and delivered as quickly as possible while ensuring that disruption for residents and other stakeholders is kept to a minimum.
"We will be consulting with residents about the next steps in the next week or so."
Elmbridge Borough Council last month confirmed a building there had cladding due to be removed, but did not say where.