Recommendations & Conclusions
4 items
23
Conclusion
17th Report - The Remediation of Danger…
Not Addressed
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 …
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
Government response AI summary
The government agrees with the observation but commits to providing annual written updates to the Committee on the overall progress of building remediation until Summer 2029. This response does not specifically address the severe financial and emotional impacts on residents or the issues noted with …
Read full response →
HM Treasury
24
Recommendation
17th Report - The Remediation of Danger…
Not Addressed
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 …
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
Government response AI summary
The government agrees with the recommendation, but commits only to writing to the Committee annually from Summer 2025 until 2029 to report on overall remediation progress, without specifying action on publishing guidance for dispute resolution.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
26
Conclusion
17th Report - The Remediation of Danger…
Not Addressed
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 …
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
Government response AI summary
The government agrees with the observation but commits to providing annual written updates to the Committee on the overall progress of building remediation until Summer 2029. This response does not specifically address the concerns raised in the conclusion about the Code of Practice, such as …
Read full response →
HM Treasury
42
Conclusion
17th Report - The Remediation of Danger…
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 …
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
HM Treasury