The National Audit Office has issued a report that states the overall scale of the unsafe cladding remediation challenge in England’s residential tower blocks is “much bigger” than the government initially estimated.
The NAO report undertook the review of The Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government (MHCLG) and its cladding remediation programme in England to see whether it constituted a “timely remediation of unsafe cladding at a reasonable cost to the taxpayer.”
While the report found that remediation of flammable ACM cladding has been completed on “most tower blocks over 18 metres with the most dangerous form of cladding,” the report finds that the overall scale of the cladding crisis is “much bigger” than the government initially estimated. The report claims that 1,392 buildings had fully replaced all flammable cladding, as of August 2024, but this is a “far cry from MHCLG’s estimate of between 9,000 and 12,000 buildings that will need work completing,” commented estate agents professional body Propertymark.
This ongoing issue affects thousands of residents who continue to face financial strain, a lack of access to affordable mortgages, and the inability to sell or insure their properties due to fire safety concerns.
The report says that 4,771 buildings have been identified and included in its portfolio.” This leaves up to 60% of affected buildings still to be identified. Among the identified buildings, “remediation work has yet to start on half and has been completed on around a third. Of all the buildings that may be in scope, work has been completed on only 12–16%.”
To address costs, MHCLG adopted a “polluter pays” principle, which states that “works are met by those responsible.” But the NAO says this approach “has created grounds for lengthy disputes between developers and freeholders over the scope of works required, causing delays.” To “stick to its £5.1bn cap in the long run,” MHCLG needs to “ensure that it can recoup any funds it spends above this through successful implementation of the proposed Building Safety Levy.”
The NAO emphasises that “there is a long way to go before all affected buildings are made safe, and there are risks MHCLG must address if its approach is to succeed.”
Regarding the Government’s response to accusations of fraud within the industry, the report states that “MHCLG has been slow to address fraud risks and must ensure its incentivisation and enforcement activities encourage reluctant freeholders to engage and ensure the industry is not stalling.”
Propertymark said the estimated overall cost of remediation is £16.6bn, of which £6.5bn will be funded by developers, the owners of the buildings or social housing providers.
Henry Griffith, policy and campaigns officer at Propertymark, commented: “We know from our members that lenders are still extremely cautious when looking to offer a mortgage on a property with unsafe cladding. The funding announced in the UK Government’s budget to remediate unsafe cladding is welcome, but it must go hand in hand with stronger measures to prevent buildings from being remediated to a poor standard, increase the scope of buildings covered to those under 11 metres, and ensure more leaseholders are qualified for protections from paying for remediation costs.”