17th Report - The Remediation of Dangerous Cladding

Insufficient capacity and skills across regulators, local authorities and the construction sector risks undermining MHCLG’s acceleration plans. In 2020, the previous Committee warned that skills needed for remediation work would come under pressure as the scope of government’s programmes increased. … Read more Insufficient capacity and skills across regulators, local authorities and the construction sector risks undermining MHCLG’s acceleration plans. In 2020, the previous Committee warned that skills needed for remediation work would come under pressure as the scope of government’s programmes increased. With MHCLG now planning to accelerate remediation, there are risks that there will not be enough suitably qualified fire risk assessors to determine the scope of works, or trained cladders to undertake the work. This is likely to be exacerbated by a wider context of ambitious housebuilding targets and constrained construction sector capacity. Yet MHCLG appears complacent about the risks posed by this lack of capacity. Despite MHCLG’s assurances of additional funding and support for local authorities, local authorities may still lack the powers, capability or capacity to undertake the volume of necessary enforcement action. Where buildings are entering MHCLG’s portfolio, ongoing delays to building control approvals by the under–resourced Building Safety Regulator (BSR) could continue to hold up works on the highest risk buildings. We are alarmed to hear that BSR approvals are typically taking four to five times longer than the targeted 12 weeks. recommendation MHCLG should, by the end of July 2025, write to the Committee clearly setting out what action it is taking to help ensure there is sufficient capacity across the remediation system, and how it is assuring itself on progress. Show less

We are appalled that those living in affected buildings continue to suffer an unacceptable financial and emotional toll. Far too many people continue to feel trapped in unsafe homes, many facing financial uncertainty and many unable to sell their homes … Read more We are appalled that those living in affected buildings continue to suffer an unacceptable financial and emotional toll. Far too many people continue to feel trapped in unsafe homes, many facing financial uncertainty and many unable to sell their homes and move on with their lives. Residents face ongoing delays to works starting, often due to disputes over which safety risks are considered tolerable, and disruption when work is underway. MHCLG’s promise of a formal dispute resolution process is yet to materialise. The previous Committee recommended greater transparency and communication in 2020, yet information for many residents is still poor. MHCLG asserts that its 2023 Code of Practice for remediation puts residents at the heart of the process, but adherence is not mandatory and there is little evidence it is achieving this. Homes England’s ‘Tell Us’ tool, which enables residents to ask if Homes England is aware of their building, sounds promising but Homes England acknowledges there is more to do to publicise it. It is too early to say whether the resident surveys required for the Cladding Safety Scheme are making a difference. 5 recommendation MHCLG and Homes England should write to the Committee annually, starting alongside its TM response, with an update on how effectively it is putting residents at the heart of its remediation efforts, including: i) the usage and effectiveness of the ‘Tell Us Tool’ to help identify affected buildings; ii) the effectiveness of its dispute resolution process and whether it is using restrictions on developers; iii) how it is measuring and monitoring adherence to the Code of Practice and what action it is taking for any breaches; and iv) the outcomes of resident surveys conducted for the Cladding Safety Scheme. Show less

MHCLG is not doing enough to manage the risk that residents in affected buildings face exorbitant insurance premiums in the long term. The previous Committee raised concerns in 2020 about the spiralling insurance costs faced by residents awaiting remediation and … Read more MHCLG is not doing enough to manage the risk that residents in affected buildings face exorbitant insurance premiums in the long term. The previous Committee raised concerns in 2020 about the spiralling insurance costs faced by residents awaiting remediation and MHCLG committed to working with insurers to address them. MHCLG asserts that it has taken steps to ban terrible practices around high fees and commissions for arranging insurance. However, industry research shows that premiums for high–rise buildings doubled between 2016 and 2021 and MHCLG admits that the risk pooling arrangements it has brokered with the insurance industry have yet to reduce the highest rates. Insurance costs for buildings remediated under MHCLG’s more proportionate approach to risk (using the PAS 9980 standard) may remain high even after works are completed. This new standard prioritises risk to life rather than risk to property and supports greater use of lower cost mitigations such as sprinklers. Where risk is deemed tolerable, this can mean some flammable cladding staying in place. The insurance industry is warning that, without a standard that prioritises risk to property and requires the removal of combustible cladding, it will be unable to reduce premiums significantly. recommendation MHCLG should urgently: a. undertake a review of insurance premiums so it understands how rates compare for those remediated under both the new and old standard; and b. consider what more it can do to: i) help bring down insurance premiums for residents awaiting remediation works; and ii) address the risk that insurance for buildings remediated in accordance with the newer PAS 9980 standard is unaffordable even after works are compete, and ask the insurance industry to provide information about the overall costs of insurance premiums in high rise buildings post Grenfell and the increased insurance company payouts to policy holders. 6 Show less

Eight years on from Grenfell, we are concerned that MHCLG still does not know how many buildings have dangerous cladding, how much it will cost to address, or how long it will take. MHCLG’s latest estimate, that 9,000 to 12,000 … Read more Eight years on from Grenfell, we are concerned that MHCLG still does not know how many buildings have dangerous cladding, how much it will cost to address, or how long it will take. MHCLG’s latest estimate, that 9,000 to 12,000 buildings will need remediating at a total cost of between £12.6 billion and £22.4 billion, is very broad given the length of time that has passed since Grenfell and is now more than a year old. MHCLG asserts that it is working to narrow the range, but promised six–monthly updates have not materialised. This level of uncertainty means that MHCLG cannot know if it is on track to achieve value for money for residents and the taxpayer. PAS 9980, leaves too much open to interpretation and is resulting in disagreements over the extent of remediation required. Meanwhile, MHCLG’s data on the unit costs of remediation is based on the costs of remediating high–rise buildings under the more risk–averse standard pre–dating PAS Show less

MHCLG’s previous attempts to speed up remediation exposed the taxpayer to increased risk of fraud. When MHCLG launched its high–rise Building Safety Fund in 2020 it relaxed a range of taxpayer protections in order get money out to projects quickly. … Read more MHCLG’s previous attempts to speed up remediation exposed the taxpayer to increased risk of fraud. When MHCLG launched its high–rise Building Safety Fund in 2020 it relaxed a range of taxpayer protections in order get money out to projects quickly. While this approach has since been reversed, a potential loss of over £500,000 has been identified due to suspected fraud involving funds paid out in advance. MHCLG says 7 that counter–fraud activity was underway before a belated Fraud Risk Assessment was completed in 2023. We are concerned that poor record keeping resulted in documentation being lost. Lessons are being learned, and the Cladding Safety Scheme is on a sounder footing, including counter– fraud controls. As MHCLG prepares to accelerate remediation work, we are encouraged that it is engaging with the Public Sector Fraud Authority and taking forward work to undertake a measurement exercise to learn more about the extent of potential fraud and the effectiveness of its controls. recommendation MHCLG should, by the end of 2025: use findings from fraud measurement exercises to strengthen its counter–fraud controls and ensure they are adequate to meet accelerated funding demand; and share relevant learning across the Ministry to help prevent fraud in other programmes. Show less

We are not convinced that MHCLG is taking the potential impact of its remediation plans on wider housebuilding targets seriously enough. The government has pledged to build 1.5 million homes during this Parliament. The construction sector is reporting workforce shortages. … Read more We are not convinced that MHCLG is taking the potential impact of its remediation plans on wider housebuilding targets seriously enough. The government has pledged to build 1.5 million homes during this Parliament. The construction sector is reporting workforce shortages. There is a risk that MHCLG’s approach to remediation could negatively impact the delivery of this target, and the construction of affordable housing in particular. Paying for remediation works risks diverting social housing providers’ resources away from building new housing. Housing associations in London are reporting a 90% drop in social housing starts over the last year. There are also concerns that the cost to developers of the Building Safety Levy may further reduce the supply of affordable housing. MHCLG has not published an impact assessment of these policies on the viability of housebuilding, claiming both that it expects the impact to be small and that it is likely to be affected by too many other factors. recommendation MHCLG should, by the end of 2025, publish a formal assessment of the impact of its remediation policies (including the Building Safety Levy) on housebuilding projections in both the social and private sectors and what action needs to be taken to ensure the building of 1.5 million homes is not affected by these policies. 8 1 Accelerating remediation Introduction Show less

On the basis of a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, we took evidence from the Ministry for Housing, Communities & Local Government (MHCLG) and Homes England on remediating dangerous cladding.1 We also heard evidence from the Home Builders’ … Read more On the basis of a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, we took evidence from the Ministry for Housing, Communities & Local Government (MHCLG) and Homes England on remediating dangerous cladding.1 We also heard evidence from the Home Builders’ Federation, The National Housing Federation, the Local Government Association and the residents’ representative group End Our Cladding Scandal. Show less

We asked MHCLG how its new plan would speed up the remediation process. MHCLG told us that its Ministers were committed to speeding up the pace of remediation. The Plan introduced a target that by the end of 2029 all … Read more We asked MHCLG how its new plan would speed up the remediation process. MHCLG told us that its Ministers were committed to speeding up the pace of remediation. The Plan introduced a target that by the end of 2029 all buildings over 18 metres will have been remediated, and those between 11 and 18 metres will have been remediated, will have a date for completion, or owners will be liable for enforcement penalties. The target provides a means of assessing progress, as recommended by the NAO. However, 2029 is still 12 years on from the Grenfell fire and, as End Our Cladding Scandal pointed out, remediation works will only be completed for some buildings by then. MHCLG’s target did not set a date by which works on all 11–18 metre buildings should have started. The NAO found that MHCLG did not expect remediation works on some unsafe buildings to start until 2035.10 Show less

The Plan identified several barriers to remediating at pace and outlined the steps MHCLG was taking to address them. Some of these barriers are those MHCLG told the previous committee about in 2020, including landlord reluctance to come forward, limited … Read more The Plan identified several barriers to remediating at pace and outlined the steps MHCLG was taking to address them. Some of these barriers are those MHCLG told the previous committee about in 2020, including landlord reluctance to come forward, limited supply chains of skilled workers needed for remediation and constrained regulatory capacity for enforcement. Others are newer, such as social housing provider capability and access to funding, developer inconsistency third–party disputes, and miserable resident experience.11 Show less

Addressing some of these barriers will require legislative changes, for example, creating new obligations on landlords to remediate, and new enforcement powers for regulators to compel remediation or impose penalties. The Plan did not mention other barriers to pace highlighted … Read more Addressing some of these barriers will require legislative changes, for example, creating new obligations on landlords to remediate, and new enforcement powers for regulators to compel remediation or impose penalties. The Plan did not mention other barriers to pace highlighted by the NAO, such as the affordability of paying for defects that do not relate to cladding and are therefore ineligible for government funding.12 MHCLG assured us that although it needed to legislate for some of the activity in the Plan, it had “not held back” from taking action where it could in the meantime, for example through a joint plan it had agreed with developers. MHCLG explained that the purpose of the Plan had been to emphasise and 9 Qq 27, 30-31, 34; Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, Building Safety Remediation: monthly data release - December 2024, 23 January 2025; C&AG’s Report, para 19 10 Qq 1, 30; C&AG’s Report, recommendation a, para 2.16; MHCLG Remediation Acceleration Plan 11 Committee of Public Accounts, Progress in remediating dangerous cladding, Sixteenth Report of Session 2019-21, HC 406, 16 September 2020, paras 4 and 23; MHCLG Remediation Acceleration Plan 12 Qq 30, 39; MHCLG Remediation Acceleration Plan; C&AG’s Report, para 1.14 11 enforce remediation responsibilities, particularly on freeholders, who it said had often been the blocker to progress.13 We therefore asked if enforcement action would be taken in the next 12 months against uncooperative freeholders and developers. MHCLG told us that it had no power over regulators, but it was equipping them to take action. MHCLG told us that it was putting £33 million additional funding into enforcement. MHCLG also explained that it was legislating for backstop dates for remediation, to introduce more severe penalties for landlords who did not act, tighter assessment standards and more rigorous duties on building owners. We therefore asked MHCLG about its timetable for introducing this legislation. MH Show less

MHCLG’s Plan acknowledged that uncertainty around how many 11–18 metre buildings needed to be remediated meant that many residents were unsure about the safety of their homes and the timeline for getting them fixed.15 When asked what it was doing … Read more MHCLG’s Plan acknowledged that uncertainty around how many 11–18 metre buildings needed to be remediated meant that many residents were unsure about the safety of their homes and the timeline for getting them fixed.15 When asked what it was doing to identify remaining unsafe buildings, MHCLG said Homes England was investigating unique building records. Homes England explained that, in autumn 2024, it had started investigating around 220,000 unique records of four storey buildings to create a register of buildings over 11 metres. We heard that it would shortly start reviewing around half a million further unique records for three–storey buildings. Homes England told us that it was checking the height of these buildings, and their cladding materials using tools such as Google Earth, and that it was reviewing Land Registry data and leases to obtain ownership details. Homes England said it intended to complete its investigations by December 2025. Registration of all high–rise residential buildings was made mandatory under the Building Safety Act 2022, but MHCLG told us that mandatory registration for 11-18 metre buildings, as promised in its Plan, was contingent on legislation, for which timescales were uncertain.16 Show less

End Our Cladding Scandal (EOCS) told us it was not confident that MHCLG’s Plan would deliver for residents. It explained that too many barriers and issues remained, that MHCLG’s 2029 target was still five long years away and that it … Read more End Our Cladding Scandal (EOCS) told us it was not confident that MHCLG’s Plan would deliver for residents. It explained that too many barriers and issues remained, that MHCLG’s 2029 target was still five long years away and that it would only mean remediation was complete for some buildings–high rise buildings within the government’s grant programmes. EOCS said the target date, without an indication of when all buildings will be made safe, was essentially meaningless. It also told us that there were 13 Qq 30, 37; Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, Joint plan to accelerate developer-led remediation and improve resident experience, Policy paper, published 2 December 2024 14 Qq 34, 36-37, 39; MHCLG Remediation Acceleration Plan 15 MHCLG Remediation Acceleration Plan 16 Qq 31, 40; MHCLG Remediation Acceleration Plan; C&AG’s Report para 2.2 12 still too many issues that were not being addressed by the Government’s programmes, including non–qualifying leaseholders, shared ownership and buildings under 11 metres and that non-cladding fire safety defects were holding up remediation.17 Show less

In their written evidence to us, the National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) and The Property Institute also raised concerns about the exclusion of non– cladding defects from government funded programmes. The NFCC told us there was a “large proportion” of … Read more In their written evidence to us, the National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) and The Property Institute also raised concerns about the exclusion of non– cladding defects from government funded programmes. The NFCC told us there was a “large proportion” of buildings needing temporary measures— such as waking watches—to ensure life safety for serious internal fire safety issues other than cladding, and it was unclear who would pay to remediate them.18 The Property Institute told us that the exclusion of non– cladding issues undermined the integrity of building safety standards, failed to protect resident communities and placed a heavy burden on property owners and leaseholders.19 Show less

We asked MHCLG about what it was doing to support residents with non– cladding defects. MHCLG told us that it was developing a new standard with the British Standards Institute to give the sector more certainty over what work needed … Read more We asked MHCLG about what it was doing to support residents with non– cladding defects. MHCLG told us that it was developing a new standard with the British Standards Institute to give the sector more certainty over what work needed to be done to address non–cladding issues. It told us that owner-occupiers were protected from the costs of non-cladding defects, but that freeholders may have to meet them.20 Following the evidence session, EOCS wrote to us and reiterated situations where leaseholders were not protected.21 In written evidence, EOCS told us that non–cladding defects such as internal compartmentation, fire-stopping, fire doors or structural defects were defined as “life-critical” under the developer remediation contract and that costs to remediate them would be met by the developer. However, it told us that life-critical non-cladding defects were not within scope for buildings remediated through the government funded programmes, noting that the developer contract covered only 15–20% of all estimated buildings to be remediated.22 As the NAO’s report set out, where problems fall outside the scope of government programmes, costs may be passed on to leaseholders, who may be unable to afford them. The NAO’s report noted that the amount that could be charged to leaseholders was 17 Qq 1, 2 18 RDC0099, Written evidence submitted by the National Fire Chiefs Council, 4 February 2025 19 RDC0003, Written evidence submitted by The Property Institute, 4 February 2025 20 Q 46 21 Letter from End Our Cladding Scandal to Chair, Committee of Public Accounts, 17 February 2025 22 Q 1; RDC0145, Written evidence submitted by End Our Cladding Scandal, 4 February 2025 13 normally capped at £15,000 within Greater London and £10,000 elsewhere. EOCS told us in its letter that such costs were “life-changing” for most ordinary people, and they would not consider themselves “protected.” 23 Show less

Despite promises in 2022 of tough new measures to force industry to pay to remove cladding, MHCLG accepted that it has yet to find a way to secure a financial contribution from manufacturers. We observed that while developers were contributing … Read more Despite promises in 2022 of tough new measures to force industry to pay to remove cladding, MHCLG accepted that it has yet to find a way to secure a financial contribution from manufacturers. We observed that while developers were contributing to the costs of remediation, manufacturers of non–compliant products had yet to pay anything. MHCLG told us that the Grenfell Tower Inquiry had found “stomach–churning approaches to public safety” by manufacturers. We asked about its strategy for securing compensation payments from those product manufacturers. MHCLG told us that Ministers were disappointed that the sector had not come forward with funding and that it would be setting out its views on this matter in due course. MHCLG explained that the Building Safety Act allowed building owners, developers and leaseholders to make direct claims for compensation against manufacturers and suppliers of construction products.24 Under the Act, manufacturers are liable to pay damages if, for example, their product is found to be inherently defective or if a misleading statement had been made in the supply or marketing of that product.25 Skills and capacity to deliver accelerated remediation Show less

In 2020, the previous Committee warned that shortages of specialist skills to support remediation would increase owing to an expected increase in the number of buildings included in the government’s remediation programmes. Following the creation of the Building Safety Fund … Read more In 2020, the previous Committee warned that shortages of specialist skills to support remediation would increase owing to an expected increase in the number of buildings included in the government’s remediation programmes. Following the creation of the Building Safety Fund in 2020, this rose from around 450 buildings with ACM cladding to include a further 1,700 estimated buildings with other types of cladding. As well as a shortage of skills and personnel needed to complete remediation works, the previous Committee heard evidence of a “chronic shortage of fire engineering and safety expertise”, both for enforcement and inspection of buildings with unsafe cladding.26 Responding to the Committee, MHCLG said it had engaged with 23 Qq 1–2; RDC0145, Written evidence submitted by End Our Cladding Scandal; Letter from End Our Cladding Scandal to Chair, Committee of Public Accounts, 17 February 2025; C&AG’s Report, para 1.14 24 Qq 109–114; Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, Press release, Government to protect leaseholders with new laws to make industry pay for building safety, February 2022 25 Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government, Redress measures: information sheet, 18 October 2022 26 Committee of Public Accounts, Progress in remediating dangerous cladding, Sixteenth Report of Session 2019-21, HC 406, 16 September 2020, paras 23-25 14 industry from the outset of the programme to ensure sufficient capacity exists, was aware of challenges with fire expertise and had a number of workstreams in train to address these issues.27 Show less

The Home Builders Federation (HBF) told us that there remained a lack of skills within the industry, making it difficult to find qualified people to undertake remediation work. It explained that addressing this issue was challenging, but could, and was, … Read more The Home Builders Federation (HBF) told us that there remained a lack of skills within the industry, making it difficult to find qualified people to undertake remediation work. It explained that addressing this issue was challenging, but could, and was, being accelerated. We therefore asked MHCLG if it was confident that there were sufficient skills and capacity in the market to undertake remediation activity at the pace it was looking for. MHCLG assured us that it was something it monitored “extremely closely”, starting with the ability to access fire assessors, to creating capacity to ensure people can get access to assessments quickly.28 Show less

The National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) told us that the PAS 9980 standard for assessing the fire safety risk of external walls relied on specialist knowledge of building construction, fire engineering principles and material performance. The NFCC warned that there … Read more The National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) told us that the PAS 9980 standard for assessing the fire safety risk of external walls relied on specialist knowledge of building construction, fire engineering principles and material performance. The NFCC warned that there was limited availability of qualified professionals, and that its members were concerned that current PAS 9980 assessments were not meeting the intended standard. We also heard concerns from End Our Cladding Scandal and the NFCC about the inconsistent quality of fire risk appraisals and different assessors drawing different conclusions about what remediation work was required. The NFCC also told us that some PAS 9980 assessments were unjustifiably supporting the retention of combustible materials.29 Show less

The Home Builders Federation told us that it was concerned that a shortage of “Chartered Fire Engineers” was a barrier to speeding up developer self– remediation. MHCLG assured us that it did not currently see a shortfall of fire engineers, … Read more The Home Builders Federation told us that it was concerned that a shortage of “Chartered Fire Engineers” was a barrier to speeding up developer self– remediation. MHCLG assured us that it did not currently see a shortfall of fire engineers, and that it had access to additional capacity that that could be used if needed, observing that some of its offer was currently underutilised. MHCLG said it had offered this capacity to developers to get buildings assessed quickly, but the HBF told us that only a third of assessors on the government’s panel were the most experienced, well– qualified engineers of the calibre its members chose to use.30 Since we took 27 HM Treasury, Government response to the Committee of Public Accounts on the Sixteenth report from Session 2019-21, CP 316, November 2020, page 14 28 Qq 18-19, 42 29 Qq 3, 20; RDC0099, Written evidence submitted by the National Fire Chiefs Council; RDC0145, Written evidence submitted by End Our Cladding Scandal 30 Q5, 15, 42; RDC0006, Written evidence submitted by the Home Builders Federation, 4 February 2025 15 evidence, the Government, in its response to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, has announced its intention to bring in mandatory competence requirements for fire risk assessors.31 Show less

We asked witnesses if the construction industry had the capacity to support the acceleration of remediation. The HBF told us acceleration was happening, but that it would be challenging. It outlined some of the challenges facing the sector, including an … Read more We asked witnesses if the construction industry had the capacity to support the acceleration of remediation. The HBF told us acceleration was happening, but that it would be challenging. It outlined some of the challenges facing the sector, including an ageing construction workforce and Brexit, where stricter visa requirements have meant that some European builders have been unable to work in the UK. The Local Government Association (LGA) told us that developers, local councils and housing authorities were competing for the same limited pool of resources and that developers could probably outbid the others. MHCLG told us that it had not seen a shortfall in the capacity of the construction industry but said it was working closely with the Construction Leadership Council to provide modular training, for example, on façade engineering and cladding.32 Show less

When buildings are stuck in the remediation process, regulators (local authorities, fire and rescue authorities, and the Building Safety Regulator– for higher-risk buildings33 ) take enforcement action to get the process moving. MHCLG’s Plan recognised that constraints around the capacity … Read more When buildings are stuck in the remediation process, regulators (local authorities, fire and rescue authorities, and the Building Safety Regulator– for higher-risk buildings33 ) take enforcement action to get the process moving. MHCLG’s Plan recognised that constraints around the capacity of regulators was a barrier to the pace of remediation. It explained that in many areas, enforcement officers were too stretched, and expertise was too scarce when compared with the scale of the challenge.34 The Local Government Association told us that local authorities’ enforcement work was facing issues of funding, skills, as well as a lack of clarity over the money available and the regulatory environment, which made it difficult for local authorities to plan. It explained that local authorities were trying to train Environmental Health Officers to undertake enforcement activity as quickly as possible, but said there was a risk of losing them to other parts of the construction sector. MHCLG told us that it had published additional guidance to help regulators to understand the enforcement tools that the Building Safety Act 2022 had made available and that it had put additional funding into enforcement.35 Show less

We heard concerns about insufficient capacity and capability at the Building Safety Regulator (BSR), which oversees the safety and standards of buildings over 18 metres. The HBF told us that the BSR was continuing to hold up development, including self-remediation … Read more We heard concerns about insufficient capacity and capability at the Building Safety Regulator (BSR), which oversees the safety and standards of buildings over 18 metres. The HBF told us that the BSR was continuing to hold up development, including self-remediation work, for buildings over 18 metres. In written evidence, the HBF reported that applications to the BSR 31 Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 Report: Government response, 26 February 2025 32 Qq 19, 39, 42 33 Higher–risk buildings are residential buildings taller than 7 storeys or 18 metres. 34 MHCLG Remediation Acceleration Plan 35 Qq 22–23, 35 16 for building control approval, required before works can begin on site, were taking for to five times longer that the targeted 12 weeks.36 When we asked about the reasons for these hold ups, the HBF acknowledged that while some applications were complex, there was a lack of qualified people in the BSR to do the work. The LGA explained that this was new work for the BSR, and the regulator was learning on the job. In written evidence, the National Federation of Roofing Contractors told us about examples of BSR inspectors not having fire-safety backgrounds, and an industry-wide shortage of cladding experts to fill BSR posts.37 36 Q 15; RDC0006, Written evidence submitted by the Home Builders Federation 37 Qq 17, 19; RDC0092, Written evidence submitted by the National Federation of Roofing Contractors, 4 February 2025 17 2 Protecting residents Improving the remediation experience for residents Show less

As many as 3 million people may have been affected by the cladding crisis. The NAO found that residents continue to suffer ongoing financial and emotional consequences. In its written evidence to us, End Our Cladding Scandal (EOCS) told us … Read more As many as 3 million people may have been affected by the cladding crisis. The NAO found that residents continue to suffer ongoing financial and emotional consequences. In its written evidence to us, End Our Cladding Scandal (EOCS) told us that the lives of thousands of ordinary people had been drastically altered through no fault of their own. It noted that everyone deserves a safe home in which to live, work, care for their families and make plans for their future, but that “hundreds of thousands of people remain trapped in unsafe and unsellable flats, fighting years–long attritional battles just to know when their home will be made safe and whether it will bankrupt them”. It also told us that the PAS 9980 approach resulted in a range of issues, including “endless delays” to work starting due to disputes over the scope of the work and what constituted tolerable risk.38 Show less

MHCLG’s Remediation Acceleration Plan (the Plan) commits to publishing guidance to help where disputes between parties are delaying remediation. However, in written evidence, the Home Builders’ Federation (HBF) noted that MHCLG made this commitment over 18 months ago and it … Read more MHCLG’s Remediation Acceleration Plan (the Plan) commits to publishing guidance to help where disputes between parties are delaying remediation. However, in written evidence, the Home Builders’ Federation (HBF) noted that MHCLG made this commitment over 18 months ago and it was yet to be delivered.39 MHCLG described how it had tried to resolve disputes in the meantime, undertaking its own assessments of the scope of work required and brokering arrangements both sides will accept. However, it noted that where disagreements persist it remained reliant on existing enforcement routes.40 The National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) warned how existing enforcement and litigation can hinder rather than speed up the pace of remediation. The National Housing Federation (NHF) similarly described an example where litigation on a disputed building will not reach court until 2026 despite residents having been evacuated from the building as long ago as 2019.41 38 C&AG’s Report, para 1.6; RDC0145, Written evidence submitted by End Our Cladding Scandal 39 RDC0006, Written evidence submitted by the Home Builders Federation; MHCLG Remediation Acceleration Plan 40 Qq 48, 49 41 Q 21; RDC0099, Written evidence submitted by the National Fire Chiefs Council 18 Show less

In 2020 the previous Committee noted that many residents were not being kept informed about the process of remediation and requested that MHCLG set out how it would improve transparency.42 We therefore asked whether government was now doing enough to … Read more In 2020 the previous Committee noted that many residents were not being kept informed about the process of remediation and requested that MHCLG set out how it would improve transparency.42 We therefore asked whether government was now doing enough to help residents whose lives felt on hold while they waited to find out if their buildings needed remediation, and if so when it might happen. Homes England said it was working on “various routes” to enable this. It told us that its ‘Tell Us’ tool allowed residents to ask if their buildings are being investigated by the Cladding Safety Scheme and receive confirmation back within 48 hours. It said it was also working to open up the Cladding Safety Scheme database to local authorities and local fire and rescue services and was piloting this with Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service but had yet to explore options for sharing data with the public.43 We asked whether there was more it could do to publicise the ‘Tell Us’ tool in order to raise awareness and provide reassurance to residents. Homes England agreed and said it also had work underway with local authorities and that it hoped that the implementation of local remediation acceleration plans, as outlined in the Plan, would help raise awareness of some of its tools and give them some local exposure.44 Show less

In 2023, MHCLG launched a Code of Practice to support improved communications during remediation. The HBF and the NHF told us that developers and social housing providers had agreed to follow the code. EOCS told us the code was “a … Read more In 2023, MHCLG launched a Code of Practice to support improved communications during remediation. The HBF and the NHF told us that developers and social housing providers had agreed to follow the code. EOCS told us the code was “a long time coming” and had been heavily revised at the last minute. It told us that information on routes to recourse —where residents can go if the contractor is not doing what they need to on–site—had been taken out. EOCS told us due care was not always given to safety on building sites during remediation works and said that the fire on a construction site in Dagenham in August 2024 had been the first serious demonstration of the risks to residents when there is not enough care about safety. EOCS described inconsistent practice of the code, no real oversight, queried whether it was mandatory or advisory and highlighted a lack of awareness of the code among people they speak to.45 Show less

MHCLG’s Plan commits to driving compliance with the Code of Practice to ensure residents are kept informed throughout the remediation process and disruption from works on site is minimised.46 Homes England told us that communication with residents was far more … Read more MHCLG’s Plan commits to driving compliance with the Code of Practice to ensure residents are kept informed throughout the remediation process and disruption from works on site is minimised.46 Homes England told us that communication with residents was far more embedded in its Cladding Safety Scheme, which requires evidence of good quality communication from those responsible for remediation before it releases funds at each 42 Committee of Public Accounts, Progress in remediating dangerous cladding, Sixteenth Report of Session 2019-21, HC 406, 16 September 2020, recommendation 3 43 Q 32 44 Q 33; MHCLG Remediation Acceleration Plan 45 Qq 7–9, 12; C&AG’s Report, para 2.14 46 MHCLG Remediation Acceleration Plan 19 stage of the process. Homes England said it also required applicants to conduct a survey of residents every four months while on site. It was too early to judge the effectiveness of these measures as the Cladding Safety Scheme only had 53 buildings start the remediation process by December 2024.47 Tackling insurance costs Show less

In 2020 the previous Committee concluded that MHCLG had not done enough to address spiralling insurance costs affecting leaseholders and ‘nil’ mortgage valuations. It found that private leaseholders in blocks with dangerous cladding had received ‘nil’ valuations for their properties, … Read more In 2020 the previous Committee concluded that MHCLG had not done enough to address spiralling insurance costs affecting leaseholders and ‘nil’ mortgage valuations. It found that private leaseholders in blocks with dangerous cladding had received ‘nil’ valuations for their properties, meaning they had found it impossible to sell or remortgage, while their insurance premiums had risen over 400% in some cases. At the time of its evidence session, MHCLG told the Committee that this was an ‘industry issue’, but in the Committee’s view MHCLG needed to step up and ensure matters were resolved quickly. It recommended that MHCLG should ensure that leaseholders were not facing escalating insurance premiums and MHCLG committed to working with insurers to address these concerns.48 Show less

The Home Builders Federation (HBF) raised concerns that insurance companies were seeking to profit from the building safety crisis. The Shared Owners Network similarly wrote that many shared owners were struggling to pay housing-related costs such as insurance. End Our … Read more The Home Builders Federation (HBF) raised concerns that insurance companies were seeking to profit from the building safety crisis. The Shared Owners Network similarly wrote that many shared owners were struggling to pay housing-related costs such as insurance. End Our Cladding Scandal (EOCS) raised exorbitant insurance as one of the many costs that risked putting residents “at risk of life-changing debt or forfeiture”.49 MHCLG’s Plan acknowledged that as well as needing to find thousands of pounds to pay for insurance, high insurance can make it difficult for people to sell their properties. We asked what efforts had been made to discuss the issue with insurance companies. MHCLG recognised that this was “a very serious problem”. It told us that it had asked the Financial Conduct Authority to undertake research into the high-rise buildings market in 2022. This found that the price of insurance premiums in high-rise buildings had doubled between 2016 and 2021. In its plan, MHCLG noted and that some individuals were facing annual bills of over £3,000.50 47 Q 117; MHCLG, Building Safety Remediation: monthly data release - December 2024, 23 January 2025 48 Committee of Public Accounts, Progress in remediating dangerous cladding, Sixteenth Report of Session 2019-21, HC 406, 16 September 2020, recommendation 4 49 RDC0006, Written evidence submitted by the Home Builders Federation; RDC0143, Written evidence submitted by the Shared Owners’ Network; RDC0145, Written evidence submitted by End Our Cladding Scandal 50 Q 50; Financial Conduct Authority, Report on insurance for multi-occupancy buildings, September 2022 para 1.16; MHCLG Remediation Acceleration Plan 20 Show less

MHCLG told us that it was bringing forward statutory changes to ban insurance brokers from paying commissions to freeholders and managing agents, and capping what freeholders can charge leaseholders for arranging insurance.51 MHCLG told us that the risk–pooling arrangements it … Read more MHCLG told us that it was bringing forward statutory changes to ban insurance brokers from paying commissions to freeholders and managing agents, and capping what freeholders can charge leaseholders for arranging insurance.51 MHCLG told us that the risk–pooling arrangements it had brokered with the insurance industry to reduce rates had not yet had the impact it hoped on reducing the most extreme premiums. It recognised that “while dents have been made”, the problem of high insurance premiums was not yet resolved and there was more it could do. In its Plan, MHCLG said it was considering whether, for the duration of its remediation programmes, government might support the industry to reduce “unaffordably high” insurance bills.52 Show less

MHCLG told us that, as well as options for intervening in the market to reduce premiums while buildings are awaiting remediation, it expected the insurance industry to hold to its word in reducing premiums as risk is reduced. It said … Read more MHCLG told us that, as well as options for intervening in the market to reduce premiums while buildings are awaiting remediation, it expected the insurance industry to hold to its word in reducing premiums as risk is reduced. It said it would monitor if premiums were falling as buildings remediated through the PAS 9980 standard came through the process. However, the Association of British Insurers (ABI) indicated that without significant changes to the government’s remediation approach, premiums may remain high even after remediation.53 The PAS 9980 standard takes a more proportionate approach to remediation that prioritises risk to life and not risk to the building. This approach calls for greater use of lower cost mitigations such as sprinklers and in some cases, where the risk to life is deemed low or ‘tolerable’, it can mean some flammable material staying in place.54 Show less

In written evidence, the ABI called on government to adopt an approach that priorities property protection and building resilience alongside risk to life. It said that without a standard requiring the removal of combustible material in external walls (insulation and … Read more In written evidence, the ABI called on government to adopt an approach that priorities property protection and building resilience alongside risk to life. It said that without a standard requiring the removal of combustible material in external walls (insulation and cladding), the risk of significant fire spread would remain after remediation and there would be a limited impact on insurance premiums. MHCLG told us that there was a balance to be struck between paying for remediation that removes all risk or taking a proportionate approach around the right amount of work to do.55 51 Q 50; C&AG’s Report para 2.20 52 Qq 19, 50–51; MHCLG Remediation Acceleration Plan 53 Q 51; RDC0138 Written evidence submitted by the Association of British Insurers, 4 February 2025 54 C&AG’s Report, para 1.11 55 Q 52; RDC0138, Written evidence submitted by the Association of British Insurers, 4 February 2025 21 3 Ensuring value for money Managing uncertain costs and timescales Show less

Almost eight years on from the Grenfell Tower fire, MHCLG’s latest estimate, in February 2024, was that there were between 9,000 and 12,000 residential buildings in England taller than 11 metres that will need remediating. Based on this modelling, MHCLG … Read more Almost eight years on from the Grenfell Tower fire, MHCLG’s latest estimate, in February 2024, was that there were between 9,000 and 12,000 residential buildings in England taller than 11 metres that will need remediating. Based on this modelling, MHCLG estimated that it would cost the Government, developers and building owners (including social housing providers) between £12.6 billion and £22.4 billion to complete the works. The NAO reported in November 2024 that MHCLG intended to refresh its model every six months. But at the time of our evidence session MHCLG had not yet published any further estimates. MHCLG told us it was keen to narrow the range down and that it hoped to publish updates over the course of this year.56 Show less

Under the PAS 9980 methodology, competent professionals conduct Fire Risk Appraisals of External Walls (FRAEWs) in which they make conclusions about the risk to life posed by a building’s cladding and make proposals about remedial measures to reduce the level … Read more Under the PAS 9980 methodology, competent professionals conduct Fire Risk Appraisals of External Walls (FRAEWs) in which they make conclusions about the risk to life posed by a building’s cladding and make proposals about remedial measures to reduce the level of risk to ‘tolerable’,57 The National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) told us that the PAS 9980 assessments were resulting in different conclusions according to the individual conducting the assessment, and often conclusions that differed from the wider ‘Fire Risk Assessments’ that they were meant to inform.58 End Our Cladding Scandal (EOCS) told us in written evidence that three years after PAS9980 was introduced, huge inconsistency in the quality of FRAEWs, was causing “endless delays” over work starting due to disputes over the scope of works. At our evidence session, EOCS told us if 15 different fire engineers were to conduct a FRAEW, they would come up with 15 different opinions.59 Show less

In December 2024, MHCLG published remediation cost information per square metre for high–rise buildings over 18 metres in the Building Safety Fund with a view to helping building owners understand the expected 56 Qq 31, 93, 93, 118; CA&G’s Report … Read more In December 2024, MHCLG published remediation cost information per square metre for high–rise buildings over 18 metres in the Building Safety Fund with a view to helping building owners understand the expected 56 Qq 31, 93, 93, 118; CA&G’s Report paras 13, 3.1, Appendix One 57 Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government, Annex A: Technical guidance for applicants of building safety funding applying for funding via PAS 9980: 2022, updated 2 April 2024 58 RDC0099 Written evidence submitted by the National Fire Chiefs Council 59 Q 3; RDC0145 Written evidence submitted by End Our Cladding Scandal 22 range of costs for remediation and provide greater transparency to the public. MHCLG reported that the expected costs should range from £739 to £2,528 per m2. For most of the buildings in this dataset, remediation works had been agreed under the more risk-averse standard that pre–dated PAS 9980. Remediation costs had therefore, in most cases, included the removal and replacement of unsafe cladding. The proportionate approach to remediation that MHCLG adopted in 2022, and the PAS 9980 standard that supports it, favour lower cost mitigation measures such as sprinklers where risk to life is deemed tolerable. MHCLG therefore expected unit costs to change as more buildings are assessed under the newer standard.60 Show less

In written evidence, the Home Builders’ Federation (HBF) was very sceptical about the basis of MHCLG’s estimates of building numbers and the lack of any updates. It told us that MHCLG’s estimate of the likely number of buildings in need … Read more In written evidence, the Home Builders’ Federation (HBF) was very sceptical about the basis of MHCLG’s estimates of building numbers and the lack of any updates. It told us that MHCLG’s estimate of the likely number of buildings in need of remediation was based on assumptions that were “long outdated and highly questionable”. EOCS also highlighted the importance of collating data on the remaining buildings in need of remediation, without which it described MHCLG’s Remediation Acceleration Plan as “a plan to make a plan.” 61 Show less

Based on its central estimate of £16.6 billion for total remediation costs, MHCLG anticipated that around £7.5 billion would be paid for directly by private building owners, developers and social housing providers, and the remaining £9.1 billion would be funded … Read more Based on its central estimate of £16.6 billion for total remediation costs, MHCLG anticipated that around £7.5 billion would be paid for directly by private building owners, developers and social housing providers, and the remaining £9.1 billion would be funded through MHCLG’s grant programmes. MHCLG planned to cap the amount of public money spent on remediation at £5.1 billion, and to recoup any spending over this amount from developers through a new Building Safety Levy (the Levy) on new developments. MHCLG told us it was keen to reduce the uncertainty around building numbers and how much will need to be paid out through government grant programmes but explained that the duration of the Levy could be changed as needed to ensure it covered the final bill.62 Show less

HM Treasury has agreed to provide short–term funding that would allow remediation to progress in advance of the Levy recouping funds in later years. Based on MHCLG’s financial planning, the NAO highlighted that total taxpayer exposure could reach a maximum … Read more HM Treasury has agreed to provide short–term funding that would allow remediation to progress in advance of the Levy recouping funds in later years. Based on MHCLG’s financial planning, the NAO highlighted that total taxpayer exposure could reach a maximum of £6.3 billion in 2030-31 before all Levy receipts are collected.63 When we asked MHCLG what impact its acceleration plans might have on the spending cap, MHCLG assured us that taxpayer contributions towards remediation costs would remain capped at 60 C&AG’s Report, para 1.11; Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, Cladding remediation unit costs: analysis of high-rise non-ACM buildings - GOV.UK, December 2024 61 RDC0006 Written evidence submitted by the Home Builders Federation; RDC0145 Written evidence submitted by End Our Cladding Scandal 62 Qq 88, 91, 93–96; C&AG’s Report, figure 10, para 3.11 63 C&AG’s Report, paras 16, 3.12 23 £5.1 billion. We therefore asked MHCLG whether accelerating remediation might increase taxpayer exposure, but officials did not provide an update on the figure. In a letter following the evidence session, MHCLG advised that its figures were estimates based on several factors including the total number of buildings requiring remediation, remediation costs, how fast buildings are fixed, and the quantum of levy receipts (which itself depends on new houses built). It assured us it continued to examine these and would be updating forecasts later in the year.64 Managing risk of fraud Show less

The NAO report found that previous attempts by MHCLG to accelerate remediation resulted in it relaxing some of its safeguards and the taxpayer being exposed to an increased risk of fraud. This included moving from making payments in arrears to … Read more The NAO report found that previous attempts by MHCLG to accelerate remediation resulted in it relaxing some of its safeguards and the taxpayer being exposed to an increased risk of fraud. This included moving from making payments in arrears to making up–front payments of between 30% and 80%.65 We asked MHCLG whether it should have been obvious that relaxing funding criteria as dramatically as it did in 2020 would lead to increased fraud, noting that one potential loss of over £500,000 had already been identified. MHCLG told us that the priority for the early schemes had been to get funding out as quickly. It stressed that the system was never without checks at all, and that there were, for example, checks by experts around the scope of the work. It explained that it had made a series of changes over the last few years in response to a fraud risk assessment by the Government Internal Audit Agency, including benchmarking costs and a reduction in single–tender actions.66 Show less

The NAO report also highlighted how MHCLG was late to produce a full fraud risk assessment on the Building Safety Fund, only completing one in

MHCLG told us how the design of Homes England’s Cladding Safety Scheme would help reduce fraud in future. It explained that the new scheme captures information centrally, rather than relying on one team to pull together more disparate sources of … Read more MHCLG told us how the design of Homes England’s Cladding Safety Scheme would help reduce fraud in future. It explained that the new scheme captures information centrally, rather than relying on one team to pull together more disparate sources of intelligence. The Cladding Safety Scheme has also restored the practice of payment in arrears. MHCLG wrote to us after the hearing and provided further information on ways in which it is improving fraud prevention and detection on the Building Safety Fund, including increased counter fraud training and stronger fraud referral and investigation processes. MHCLG also told us it was working with the Public Sector Fraud Authority to keep its fraud risk assessments under review. MHCLG also confirmed that, in response to the NAO’s recommendation, it had started a feasibility study for a fraud measurement exercise.70 Managing impact of remediation on other housing priorities Show less

The National Housing Federation (NHF) told us that the government’s approach to funding remediation for non–ACM cladding allocated public funding in a way that prioritised tenure over risk. It said that the arrangements meant that, in reality, 90% of public … Read more The National Housing Federation (NHF) told us that the government’s approach to funding remediation for non–ACM cladding allocated public funding in a way that prioritised tenure over risk. It said that the arrangements meant that, in reality, 90% of public funding for remediating non–ACM type cladding had gone to private building owners and only 10% to social landlords.71 When the previous Committee last looked at this issue, MHCLG had announced (in May 2018) that it would make £400 million available to social providers to fund the removal of Grenfell-style Aluminium Composite Material cladding from buildings over 18 metres.72 MHCLG told us that a little under £570 million had gone into social housing through the different government schemes. In November 2024, the NAO reported that MHCLG expected social providers to fund an estimated £3.8 billion of remediation costs for their buildings and that it had set a high threshold for 69 Q 82; Letter from Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to Committee of Public Accounts, 18 February 2025 70 Qq 75, 78-79; C&AG’s Report, paras 3.10; Letter from Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to Committee of Public Accounts, 18 February 2025 71 Q 21 72 Committee of Public Accounts, Progress in remediating dangerous cladding, Sixteenth Report of Session 2019-21, HC 406, 16 September 2020 25 access to government funding. The NHF told us that equal access to funding with the private sector would be a real factor in unlocking pace for the social housing sector.73 Show less

The Government has pledged to build 1.5 million homes during this Parliament and expects social housing to be at the heart of the UKs’ housing supply. Against a backdrop of the construction sector reporting workforce shortages (paragraph 20), we asked … Read more The Government has pledged to build 1.5 million homes during this Parliament and expects social housing to be at the heart of the UKs’ housing supply. Against a backdrop of the construction sector reporting workforce shortages (paragraph 20), we asked the NHF how the government’s approach to remediation in the social housing sector was likely to impact the number of social sector homes being developed.74 In both written and oral evidence, the NHF told us that to pay for cladding remediation, housing associations were having to divert funding from building new homes. The NHF told us that the impact in London had been “catastrophic” where, it said, despite facing the greatest housing pressures across the country, affordable housing starts had fallen by 90% last year. It also told us that there were adverse effects on the government’s ability to meet its target for 1.5 million new homes, but also on the cost of temporary accommodation and on homelessness. It told us that if the £3.8 billion that social housing providers were expected to spend on remediating existing buildings were instead to be invested in developing new homes, it could result in an additional 76,000 new homes being built.75 Show less

We asked MHCLG about its understanding of the impact that £3.8 billion of self–remediation costs might have on social sector housebuilding, and whether it had undertaken any assessment of how many houses would not be built because money was being … Read more We asked MHCLG about its understanding of the impact that £3.8 billion of self–remediation costs might have on social sector housebuilding, and whether it had undertaken any assessment of how many houses would not be built because money was being spent on remediation. MHCLG told us that it was “certainly the case” that social housing providers were having to balance a range of obligations. We therefore asked if it was reasonable to conclude that when local authorities were deciding whether and when to complete remediation works, they were having to cut back on their commitments on new homes. MHCLG accepted that where a social housing provider was spending money on one type of activity, it would not be able to spend money on another type of activity. It told us that this was one of the reasons why Ministers planned to take stock of the overall position of the sector ahead of a strategy in the spring.76 MHCLG wrote to us after our evidence session to tell us about its response to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 report, and that it was taking forward an “ambitious programme of social housing reform” to change how residents’ voices are heard and acted on, to “keep people at the heart of policy and practice.” 77 73 Qq 21,60, 62; C&AG’s Report, para 3.11 74 Qq 28, 64 75 Q 28; Letter from National Housing Federation to Committee of Public Accounts, 11 February 2025 76 Qq 62-64, 74 77 Letter from Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to Committee of Public Accounts, 18 February 2025 26 Show less

In its written evidence to us, the Home Builders Federation (HBF), which represents the home building industry, told us of its concerns about the possible impact of the Building Safety Levy on new housing delivery. MHCLG currently expects to raise … Read more In its written evidence to us, the Home Builders Federation (HBF), which represents the home building industry, told us of its concerns about the possible impact of the Building Safety Levy on new housing delivery. MHCLG currently expects to raise £3.4 billion over 10 years from the new levy. The HBF noted that, in the absence of detailed levy rates, which it did not expect to be published until later in 2025, it anticipated that there would be an impact on the supply of new homes, especially affordable housing and especially in the south–east of England. The HBF also told us that it was concerned that many smaller developers will go out of business as a result of the financial burden being placed on the home building industry.78 Show less

We asked MHCLG about the potential impacts of the Building Safety Levy on housing provision. MHCLG said it had not published any impact assessment or produced specific numbers, but believed the impact would be relatively small. It told us that … Read more We asked MHCLG about the potential impacts of the Building Safety Levy on housing provision. MHCLG said it had not published any impact assessment or produced specific numbers, but believed the impact would be relatively small. It told us that it had deliberately designed the Levy to take into account factors to protect housing supply. It explained that Levy design features, such as discounted rates for brownfield sites and exemptions for affordable housing, would protect viability and minimise the impact of the Levy on building supply.79 In a follow up letter, MHCLG told us that it thought that multiple factors will affect the number of houses developers are able to build including finance, land prices, labour and materials costs.80 78 Q 5; C&AG’s Report, para 3.11; RDC0006 Written evidence submitted by the Home Builders Federation 79 Qq 97–99 80 Letter from Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to Committee of Public Accounts, 18 February 2025 27 Show less