17th Report - The Remediation of Dangerous Cladding

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

View Details →

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

View Details →

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

View Details →

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

View Details →

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

View Details →

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

View Details →

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

View Details →

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

View Details →

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

View Details →

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

View Details →

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

View Details →

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 …

View Details →

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 …

View Details →

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 …

View Details →

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 …

View Details →

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 …

View Details →

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 …

View Details →

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 …

View Details →

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 …

View Details →

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 …

View Details →

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 …

View Details →

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 …

View Details →

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, …

View Details →

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 …

View Details →

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 …

View Details →

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 …

View Details →

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 …

View Details →

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 …

View Details →