Recommendation 14

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