Dangerous cladding: the government’s remediation portfolio

MHCLG should consider whether there is additional information and data that it could publish about the portfolio that would: ? give residents in buildings not yet in a programme, or not yet being remediated privately, an indication of how long they might need to wait until their building is made safe. For example, MHCLG should publish a target date by which it expects all affected buildings to be remediated based on its understanding of the number of buildings to be remediated and the speed at which it expects building owners and developers to complete works. It should continue to review whether the date remains achievable as the portfolio progresses

Ref Page 16, point a, first bullet · Implemented Q3 2024-25

MHCLG should consider whether there is additional information and data that it could publish about the portfolio that would: enhance the level of transparency for Parliament and the public over portfolio performance ? and therefore whether it is achieving value for taxpayers? money or whether it needs to change approach. For example, it could publish data on the proportion of total buildings to be remediated (according to its latest estimates) for which remediation has started or completed, and a measure of whether the portfolio is on track to achieve a published target date.

Ref Page 16, Point a, second bullet · Implemented Q2 2025-26

MHCLG should evaluate its code of practice for the remediation of residential buildings to ensure that it is helping residents of buildings where remediation works are planned or underway to understand whether progress in their buildings is reasonable. This is important to enable residents to use the code as a basis to query progress on their buildings and understand whether they need to take action to escalate. If the code is not delivering as intended, or not helping to reduce delays, MHCLG should work with residents to consider what more it can do to help

Ref Page 16, Point b · Implemented Q3 2026-27

If the number of buildings within the individual programmes and progress with remediation have not picked up by the end of the year, MHCLG and Homes England should consider other actions to incentivise responsible entities to apply to its programmes, and increase pace of remediation. For example, it could consider mandatory registration for buildings 11?18 metres (as it has for high-rise buildings over 18 metres), tougher enforcement activity and action to help resolve or avoid protracted disputes between stakeholders over the scope of works.

Ref Page 16, Point c · Implemented Q3 2026-27

MHCLG should assess the feasibility of conducting a measurement exercise to estimate the extent of undetected fraud and error across its remediation portfolio. A measurement exercise would help it to understand the scale of the problem and whether further investigations are needed, while also supporting wider learning around controls.

Ref Page 16, Point d · Implemented Q3 2026-27

MHCLG should share any relevant learning with the Public Sector Fraud Authority and the Cabinet Office Complex Grants Advice Panel. It should also report the results of such an exercise in its annual report and explain how it is using them to target improvements to the design of programme controls.

Ref Page 17, Point e · Implemented Q3 2026-27

MHCLG should continue to work with other teams and other government departments to enhance its understanding of how its cladding remediation activity might impact or support other government priorities; for example: MHCLG should capture how its work with other teams and other government departments has secured efficiencies and helped to ensure policies are not working at cross-purposes with other government priorities.

Ref Page 17, Point f, first bullet · Implemented Q3 2026-27

MHCLG should continue to work with other teams and other government departments to enhance its understanding of how its cladding remediation activity might impact or support other government priorities; for example to maximise value for money from their investment in systems, MHCLG and Homes England should explore opportunities to use data collected on buildings for other purposes (in line with data protection rules) ? for example, to provide information to residents or to support cross-government objectives such as on net zero.

Ref Page 17, Point f, second bullet · Implemented Q3 2026-27