Uncertain Building Remediation Costs

#22 —

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: While leaseholders have been unable to move or remortgage, some have seen their insurances premiums rise significantly. For those in buildings with serious fire safety defects, there are examples of premiums rising by over 400%.69 This is on top of …

Gov response: 5.5 The department is also aware of challenges in accessing affordable buildings insurance for some blocks with building safety concerns. Officials are working with industry to understand this better.

Not Addressed

#21 —

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: We made it clear to the Department that professional indemnity insurance has been regularly brought to our attention by the industry and needs sorting as a priority.67 The Department told us that it is working with the Fire Industry Association …

Gov response: 5.4 The department is aware of challenges with the capacity of professional fire expertise and associated public indemnity insurance constraints. With industry, the department has several joint workstreams actively seeking to address this. 5.5 The …

Not Addressed

#20 —

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: In response to our concern that leaseholders are receiving nil valuations, the Department told us that this is an “industry issue” but it is engaging with lenders and involving the Treasury on this.63 UK Finance wrote to us to say …

Gov response: 5.3 The department is aware that some lenders and valuers are using the RICS EWS1 valuation process for multi-storey, multi-occupancy residential blocks of any height. The department does not support this blanket approach, especially for …

Not Addressed

#19 —

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: However, the process has not been working as intended. The process can be expensive and lasts for only five years, with costs often passed onto leaseholders.57 The process has been slow; the demand for the work to inspect external walls …

Gov response: 5.1 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Target implementation date: May 2021 5.2 The External Wall Fire Review process (EWS1 form) was introduced by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), UK Finance and …

Not Addressed

#18 —

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: Leaseholders in blocks with dangerous cladding have had their properties valued nil, making it impossible for them to sell or remortgage. This issue was raised with us many times in written evidence from across the sector and confidentially from residents.54 …

Gov response: 5.3 The department is aware that some lenders and valuers are using the RICS EWS1 valuation process for multi-storey, multi-occupancy residential blocks of any height. The department does not support this blanket approach, especially for …

Not Addressed

#17 —

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: We asked the Department if it knew of any impact to social sector rents as a result of cladding replacement. It told us that it does not collect the information currently, but it has received information from social landlords, and …

Not Addressed

#16 —

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: Additional costs may also arrive through wider fire safety issues discovered during remediation works and need correction. The National Audit Office found that cladding inspection has revealed other significant flaws in construction and fire safety in many 42 Ministry of …

Gov response: 3.1 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Target implementation date: Spring 2021 3.2 The government is taking urgent action to speed up the remediation of wider fire safety issues in residential buildings. It is …

Not Addressed

#15 —

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: Private leaseholders’ emotional strain has been compounded by rising costs passed on to them by their building owners. These costs are often as a result of interim fire safety measures. The Department estimated a common interim measure, waking watches (overnight …

Gov response: 4.3 However, understandably, many leaseholders are anxious about costs from interim measures, such as waking watch (overnight patrols to evacuate residents in case of fire). The department has been investigating steps to reduce waking watch …

Not Addressed

#13 —

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: The number of residents living in buildings with unsafe cladding is not clear. The Department estimates there are over 20,000 homes in around 240 high-rise buildings yet to be remediated with unsafe cladding similar to that used on the Grenfell …

Gov response: 3.3 The department will write to the Committee in the spring of 2021 with an update on the data collection of external wall systems of 11-18 metres high residential buildings.

Not Addressed

#10 —

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: The Department said it was unacceptable that buildings of any height had unsafe cladding, not just high-rise buildings (i.e. those above 18 metres in height). Nevertheless, it said it was not funding the replacement of cladding in buildings below 18 …

Gov response: 3.5 The department will write to the Committee in the spring of 2021 with an update on the data collection of external wall systems of 11-18 metres high residential buildings.

Not Addressed

#8 —

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: The Department told us it estimated the costs of replacing this cladding as between £3 billion and £3.5 billion; the new £1 billion fund would therefore be expected to cover up to a third of these costs. It said the …

Gov response: The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Target implementation date: December 2020 3.3 The department recognises that the costs of replacing unsafe non-ACM cladding are significant. The Building Safety Fund is designed to ensure that …

Not Addressed

#1 —

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: On the basis of a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, we took evidence from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (the Department) about the remediation of dangerous of cladding on high-rise buildings.1

Gov response: 1. NHS resilience and recovery – Lee McDonough, DHSC; Ruth May, Chief Nursing Office for England 2. Social care resilience including workforce and minimising transmission – Michelle Dyson, DHSC 3. Supply and distribution of key …

Under Consideration

#4 —

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: The Department has not done enough to address spiralling insurance costs and ‘nil’ mortgage valuations. Private leaseholders in blocks with dangerous cladding have received ‘nil’ valuations for their properties, meaning they have found it impossible to sell or remortgage, while …

Gov response: 5: PAC conclusion: The Department has not done enough to address spiraling insurance costs and ‘nil’ mortgage valuations. 5: PAC recommendation: The Department should ensure that cross-sector work to resolve issues with the External Wall …

Not Addressed

#2 —

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: The Department is not fully funding the replacement of forms of dangerous cladding which are different from that used on Grenfell Tower, nor is it prioritising spending according to greatest risks or need. While the Department has established a new …

Gov response: 2.1 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Ta rget implementation date: To be determined 2.2 The department has committed to bring forward proposals for ensuring that unsafe cladding is removed from high rise buildings …

Not Addressed

#9 —

Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee

Recommendation: The Government should abolish the loan scheme. We reiterate our call on the Government to re-establish the principle that leaseholders should not pay anything towards the cost of remediating historical building safety defects. Instead, as we have stated, costs should …

Gov response: We believe that establishing a “Comprehensive Building Safety Fund” as the Committee recommends would drive unnecessary remediation works to the detriment of leaseholders. The Government is advocating a proportionate approach to building safety. This will …

Under Consideration

#8 —

Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee

Recommendation: It is disappointing that the Government’s proposed loan scheme, whereby leaseholders contribute up to £50 a month to pay for cladding remediation works on buildings between 11m and 18m high, does not satisfy the previously agreed principle that leaseholders should …

Gov response: We believe that establishing a “Comprehensive Building Safety Fund” as the Committee recommends would drive unnecessary remediation works to the detriment of leaseholders. The Government is advocating a proportionate approach to building safety. This will …

Under Consideration

#1 —

Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee

Recommendation: We are concerned that, despite our previous recommendation on this issue, the Government still lacks data on the full scale and extent of remediation needed for buildings both below and above 18m. In order to know how much it will …

Gov response: We are committed to publishing information in data releases as soon as it is appropriate to do so. We currently publish a monthly data release on progress with remediation of unsafe ACM cladding. We also …

Under Consideration

#15 —

Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee

Recommendation: As they stand, the Government’s proposals create a bizarre lucky dip in which some leaseholders may see their costs capped at £10,000 (£15,000 in London); some, because they have not yet paid for cladding remediation, may pay nothing at all; …

Gov response: This information has not been collected systematically by the department, and the department does not have plans to collect this information from leaseholders.

Not Accepted

#11 —

Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee

Recommendation: Governments share responsibility for the building safety crisis on account of their regulatory failings. Everyone involved would instantly have more funds to spend on remediation if the Government played its part by removing VAT on building safety activity, which would …

Gov response: The Government is committed to supporting leaseholders and ensuring essential works are taken forward. The supply of fire safety equipment, under qualifying circumstances is already eligible for VAT relief when provided alongside the construction and …

Not Accepted

#22 — Home Office failed to adequately assess acquisition risks and costs for Northeye site.

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: When the Chief Secretary to the Treasury approved the acquisition of the Northeye site on 25 March 2023, he noted that the value-for-money case was marginal and based on assumptions that were highly uncertain.71 The cost of remediating the building …

Under Consideration

#14 — Home Office acquired Northeye site with incomplete information and insufficient contamination surveys.

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: The Home Office assessed the acquisition against the Accounting Officer tests, concluding that the proposal met the tests of regularity, propriety and feasibility, presented in the Accounting Officer Advice. The assessment also found that the use of the site for …

Under Consideration

#11 — Home Office failed to fully action Northeye site survey recommendations on contamination and costs.

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: The Home Office commissioned some surveys but not a complete ‘Red Book’ survey and sought some additional professional advice on the state of the Northeye site before deciding to purchase it. Preliminary surveys of the site warned of potentially high …

Under Consideration

#19 — HMPPS extended Dartmoor lease despite radon, requiring further investment for reopening

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: To help with capacity pressures, HMPPS recently extended its lease for HMP Dartmoor by 25 years, starting in 2023–24, despite the detection of radon gas in 2020. It closed the prison temporarily in July 2024, following the detection of high …

Not Addressed

#46 — MHCLG expects Building Safety Levy to have minimal impact on housing supply.

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: 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 …

Gov response: 7.1 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Target implementation date: December 2025 7.2 The government will write to the Committee before the end of 2025 to provide an update on the interaction between remediation …

Accepted

#45 — Building Safety Levy raises concerns about impact on new housing delivery and smaller developers.

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: 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 …

Gov response: 7.1 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Target implementation date: December 2025 7.2 The government will write to the Committee before the end of 2025 to provide an update on the interaction between remediation …

Accepted

#44 — MHCLG acknowledges remediation spending by social housing providers reduces new home building commitments.

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: 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 …

Gov response: 7.1 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Target implementation date: December 2025 7.2 The government will write to the Committee before the end of 2025 to provide an update on the interaction between remediation …

Accepted

#43 — Social housing providers diverting funds for cladding remediation impacts new home construction significantly.

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: 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 …

Gov response: 7.1 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Target implementation date: December 2025 7.2 The government will write to the Committee before the end of 2025 to provide an update on the interaction between remediation …

Accepted

#38 — Taxpayer exposure to building remediation costs could exceed the stated £5.1 billion cap.

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: 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 …

Gov response: 5.1 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Target implementation date: Summer 2025 5.2 The government will publish latest building number estimates by the summer. The exact timing of publication of estimates of costs and …

Not Addressed

#36 — MHCLG's building remediation number estimates remain outdated and highly questionable.

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: 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 …

Gov response: 5.1 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Target implementation date: Summer 2025 5.2 The government will publish latest building number estimates by the summer. The exact timing of publication of estimates of costs and …

Partially Accepted

#35 — Published remediation unit costs reflect older standards, not the lower-cost PAS 9980 methodology.

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: 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 …

Gov response: 5.1 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Target implementation date: Summer 2025 5.2 The government will publish latest building number estimates by the summer. The exact timing of publication of estimates of costs and …

Not Addressed

#33 — Building remediation cost estimates for thousands of buildings remain uncertain without updates.

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: 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 …

Gov response: 5.1 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Target implementation date: Summer 2025 5.2 The government will publish latest building number estimates by the summer. The exact timing of publication of estimates of costs and …

Partially Accepted

#32 — Insurance premiums will remain high without full property protection alongside life safety.

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: 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 …

Gov response: 4.1 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Target implementation date: December 2025 4.2 The government agrees with the Committee that it is important to build evidence on the cost of buildings insurance. MHCLG therefore …

Accepted

#31 — Insurance premiums may remain high despite remediation due to PAS 9980 life safety focus.

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: 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 …

Gov response: 4.1 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Target implementation date: December 2025 4.2 The government agrees with the Committee that it is important to build evidence on the cost of buildings insurance. MHCLG therefore …

Not Addressed

#30 — Risk-pooling arrangements have not effectively reduced extreme building insurance premiums for leaseholders

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: 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 …

Gov response: 4.1 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Target implementation date: December 2025 4.2 The government agrees with the Committee that it is important to build evidence on the cost of buildings insurance. MHCLG therefore …

Accepted

#29 — Exorbitant building insurance costs continue to impose severe financial hardship and debt risk

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: 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 …

Gov response: 4.1 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Target implementation date: December 2025 4.2 The government agrees with the Committee that it is important to build evidence on the cost of buildings insurance. MHCLG therefore …

Not Addressed

#28 — Spiralling insurance costs and 'nil' mortgage valuations for leaseholders remain largely unaddressed

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: 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, …

Gov response: 4.1 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Target implementation date: December 2025 4.2 The government agrees with the Committee that it is important to build evidence on the cost of buildings insurance. MHCLG therefore …

Accepted

#23 — Millions of residents trapped in unsafe, unsellable flats face severe financial and emotional hardship

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: 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 …

Gov response: The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Target implementation date: Summer 2025 The government will write to the Committee annually from Summer 2025, until Summer 2029 when, in alignment with the RAP, all 18m+ buildings …

Not Addressed

#15 — Manufacturers of non-compliant construction products have yet to contribute financially to remediation.

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: 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 …

Gov response: The government disagrees with the Committee’s recommendation. The government is currently consulting on redress routes as part of the Construction Products Reform Green Paper. Moreover, leaseholders and tenants are protected from the cost of cladding …

Not Accepted

#14 — Leaseholders continue to face significant, 'life-changing' costs for non-cladding fire safety defects.

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: 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 …

Gov response: The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Target implementation date: Autumn 2025 The government is working to publish an update of the Remediation Acceleration Plan in Summer 2025; however, this is dependent on the outcome …

Accepted

#9 — Persistent and new barriers hinder accelerated progress of cladding remediation efforts.

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: 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 …

Gov response: 2.1 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Target implementation date: July 2025 2.2 The government agrees to update the Committee on the work it is doing to increase capacity and skills across the building …

Accepted

#8 — MHCLG's cladding remediation targets considered too slow and incomplete, with works extending to 2035.

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: 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 …

Gov response: 1.1 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Target implementation date: Autumn 2025 1.2 The government is working to publish an update of the Remediation Acceleration Plan in Summer 2025; however, this is dependent on …

Accepted

#5 — Uncertainty remains regarding dangerous cladding remediation scope, costs, and completion timelines.

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: 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 …

Gov response: The government disagrees with the Committee’s recommendation. The government is currently consulting on redress routes as part of the Construction Products Reform Green Paper. Moreover, leaseholders and tenants are protected from the cost of cladding …

Not Accepted

#4 — Undertake urgent review of building insurance premiums and propose actions to reduce costs for residents.

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: 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 …

Gov response: The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. cost of buildings insurance. MHCLG therefore continues to work with industry and other stakeholders to gather data on insurance costs including premiums for buildings before, during and after …

Accepted

#3 — Publish annual report on effectiveness of resident-centric remediation, dispute resolution, and Code of Practice adherence.

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: 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 …

Gov response: The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Summer 2029 when, in alignment with the RAP, all 18m+ buildings with unsafe cladding in government-funded schemes will be remediated, and every 11m+ building will either be remediated, …

Accepted

#12 — UKHSA's ageing high containment laboratories pose significant public health risk due to remedial investment needs.

Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation: UKHSA’s purpose is to prevent, prepare for and respond to infectious diseases and environmental hazards, and to provide scientific and operational leadership to protect the public’s health and to build the nation’s health security capability.UKHSA owns high containment science laboratories …

Gov response: 3.1 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Target implementation date: April 2026 3.2 The government recognises that an urgent decision is needed on the future location of UKHSA’s high-containment laboratories. A thorough assessment of …

Not Addressed

#35 — Publish compensation position for unused border infrastructure and prevent future stranded investments.

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee

Recommendation: The Government should set out how it will learn lessons from the implementation of the Border Target Operating Model (BTOM), including the handling of costs for unused or under used border infrastructure. It should publish its position on compensation for …

Gov response: The government accepts this recommendation. We are already engaging with both port health authorities and port operators regarding impacts of SPS agreement implementation. Whilst we cannot provide a specific position on compensation at this point, …

No Published Response

#34 — Lack of compensation clarity for redundant border infrastructure negatively impacts government relationships.

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee

Recommendation: Local authorities and businesses have invested heavily, at the Government’s instruction, in border infrastructure that may become redundant under a new SPS regime. A lack of clarity from HM Treasury regarding compensation has had a negative impact on relationships between …

Gov response: The government accepts this recommendation. We are already engaging with both port health authorities and port operators regarding impacts of SPS agreement implementation. Whilst we cannot provide a specific position on compensation at this point, …

No Published Response

#9 — Shift funding from short-term repairs to comprehensive upgrades and rebuilds for high-risk schools.

Education Committee

Recommendation: Funding should move beyond short-term patching and repairs toward comprehensive upgrades and rebuilds, prioritising schools beyond their design life and those posing the greatest safety risks. (Conclusion, Paragraph 49)

Gov response: The Education Estates Strategy, set out a long-term plan for the education estate. At its core is more proactive management, long-term strategic maintenance and renewal that prioritises condition need, risk and resilience alongside delivering high-quality …

Accepted

#8 — RAAC crisis highlights ageing, fragile school estate requiring more than incremental fixes.

Education Committee

Recommendation: The RAAC crisis highlighted a deeper, systemic issue: the ageing and fragile condition of England’s school estate. RAAC is not the only issue of concern within the wider school estate. While we welcome the Government’s commitment to publish a long-term …

Gov response: The Government welcomes the Education Committee’s Seventh Report of Session 2024–26, Foundations of Learning: replacing RAAC and securing school buildings (HC 1399), and thanks the Committee for its thorough examination of Reinforced Autoclaved Aerated Concrete …

Response Pending

#5 — DfE made advances in RAAC response, but sustained implementation is still required.

Education Committee

Recommendation: We recognise the substantial efforts undertaken since 2023 to safeguard pupils and staff, and to restore continuity of learning in settings affected by RAAC. The Department has improved guidance, begun to professionalise 18 estate capability, strengthened resilience arrangements, and committed …

Gov response: The Government welcomes the Education Committee’s Seventh Report of Session 2024–26, Foundations of Learning: replacing RAAC and securing school buildings (HC 1399), and thanks the Committee for its thorough examination of Reinforced Autoclaved Aerated Concrete …

Response Pending