Edit this article

Last edited 21 Mar 2025

PAC report on the Remediation of Dangerous Cladding 2024-25

1 In brief
2 Comments from the Chair, Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown MP
3 Key points and recommendations
4 Concluding comments
5 Related articles on Designing Buildings

[edit] In brief

The Committee of Public Accounts or Public Accounts Committee (PAC) is appointed by the House of Commons to examine “the accounts showing the appropriation of the sums granted by Parliament to meet the public expenditure, and of such other accounts laid before Parliament as the committee may think fit” (Standing Order No.148).

On 21 March, 2025 PAC published its seventeenth report of session 2024–25 (HC 362) The Remediation of Dangerous Cladding. The report highlights that the cladding crisis following the Grenfell Tower disaster has escalated significantly since 2020. Initially a £600 million plan for 450 buildings, it now covers 9,000–12,000 buildings with an estimated cost of £12.6–£22.4 billion. It notes that progress is slow and 7,000 buildings remain unidentified, whilst work has not begun on half of the 5,000 in the government’s portfolio. The report stresses that millions are affected, facing financial strain and high insurance costs, whilst the government's £5.1 billion cap and delayed Building Safety Levy add further uncertainty. The report concludes that the remediation plan lacks ambition, as it is failing to address key barriers such as landlord reluctance, supply chain constraints, as well as non-cladding defects, it highlights a number of issues and makes a number of recommendations against the issues including taking urgent action to:

Address workforce shortages.
Improve transparency and resident support.
Reduce insurance costs.
Secure funding from manufacturers.
Prevent fraud and mismanagement.
Protect housebuilding targets.
Failure to act swiftly risks leaving thousands of residents in unsafe homes for many more years to come.

[edit] Comments from the Chair, Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown MP

“The Grenfell tower fire will forever be a badge of shame for the nation. Residents were let down by failings at every level. A community was traumatised, and 72 lives were lost. Rightly, all in positions of responsibility have vowed to do everything in our power to prevent such a disaster ever happening again. But eight years after Grenfell, it is still not known how many buildings out there have dangerous cladding, and when it will be removed. That vow remains unkept for every day that is still the case."

“As a chartered surveyor, I take a deep personal interest in building safety. I was utterly appalled by the evidence given to our inquiry, showing residents still mired in the national cladding crisis, with no immediate solutions at hand. Leaseholders with modest financial means can often be left with potentially large financial liabilities, effectively rendering their property unsaleable. There are two main reasons for this – one, the non-cladding defects in buildings, and two, where leaseholders also have a share in the freehold. That crisis shows signs of having a chilling effect on housebuilding overall, with social housing providers forced to divert resources to remediation rather than badly needed new homes. Despite longstanding promises to make industry pay, Government has yet to find a way to secure this outcome."

“It would have course been the Committee’s wish that this report carried better news for all affected. Unfortunately, we are united with campaigners in deeply regrettable scepticism that current remediation plans are capable of delivering on what’s promised. We would therefore urge Government to look to the recommendations in our report, to help close the gap between their current plans, and the reality on the ground.”

[edit] Key points and recommendations

[edit] Concerns Over the MHCLG’s Remediation Acceleration Plan

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) has faced criticism over the effectiveness and ambition of its Remediation Acceleration Plan. Despite commitments to accelerate remediation, up to 7,000 unsafe buildings remain unidentified, and progress has been painfully slow. Many buildings might not have even started remediation work by the 2029 target, which is twelve years after the Grenfell fire.

One major barrier is the legislative process, which the MHCLG does not fully control. The lack of mandatory registration for affected medium-rise buildings has made it difficult to track and address all unsafe structures. While Homes England is working to identify these buildings, progress remains slow. Additionally, the plan does not adequately address non-cladding safety defects, which can stall progress. The government has also failed to secure financial contributions from the manufacturers of dangerous cladding products, despite previous promises.

[edit] The report recommends:

MHCLG should, within six months, provide an update to the committee outlining:

How it plans to address legislative gaps preventing remediation.
Measures taken to ensure non-cladding defects do not slow progress.
Progress made by Homes England in identifying dangerous buildings.
A comprehensive strategy to address all fire safety defects, not just those related to cladding.

[edit] Lack of Skilled Workers and Regulatory Capacity

A major obstacle to faster remediation is the lack of skilled workers and regulatory capacity. The construction industry faces a shortage of fire risk assessors and trained cladding workers, making it difficult to meet the government's accelerated timeline. This problem is worsened by ambitious housebuilding targets, which further strain resources. Local authorities also struggle with limited capacity and enforcement powers. Many buildings awaiting remediation fall under MHCLG’s jurisdiction, but delays in building control approvals, due to under-resourced Building Safety Regulators (BSR) have slowed progress. BSR approvals take four to five times longer than the targeted 12 weeks, creating bottlenecks in the system.

[edit] The report recommends:

By July 2025, MHCLG should report on:

Actions taken to increase capacity within the remediation system.
Strategies to ensure that building safety enforcement is not delayed.

[edit] Financial and Emotional Toll on Residents

Thousands of residents remain trapped in unsafe homes, unable to sell their properties due to fire safety concerns. Many face financial uncertainty, high service charges, and significant delays in remediation work. Disputes over what constitutes a tolerable risk further prolong these delays. Despite previous recommendations, MHCLG has failed to establish a formal dispute resolution process, leaving affected residents with little recourse. The government’s 2023 Code of Practice for remediation claims to prioritise residents, but adherence is voluntary, and evidence suggests it has not been effective. Homes England’s "Tell Us" tool, which allows residents to check if their buildings are registered for remediation, has seen limited awareness and engagement. The impact of resident surveys under the Cladding Safety Scheme is still unclear.

[edit] The report recommends:

MHCLG and Homes England should provide annual updates on:

The effectiveness of the "Tell Us" tool in identifying affected buildings.
Progress in dispute resolution, including action against non-compliant developers.
How adherence to the Code of Practice is being monitored and enforced.
Insights from resident surveys and how they influence policy changes.

[edit] High Insurance Costs for Residents

Since the Grenfell disaster, insurance premiums for high-rise buildings have skyrocketed. Research indicates that between 2016 and 2021, premiums doubled, placing a significant financial burden on residents. Although MHCLG has taken steps to ban excessive commissions and fees, it has failed to reduce the highest insurance rates. The new PAS 9980 fire safety standard prioritises risk to life rather than risk to property, leading to disputes over remediation costs. Insurance companies have warned that unless the removal of all combustible cladding is mandated, premiums will remain unaffordable even after remediation.

[edit] The report recommends:

MHCLG should urgently:

Conduct a review of insurance premiums to compare costs for buildings remediated under both the old and new standards.
Explore ways to reduce insurance premiums for residents awaiting remediation.
Address the risk of high post-remediation insurance costs for buildings following the PAS 9980 standard.

[edit] Lack of Clear Data on Dangerous Buildings and Costs

Eight years after Grenfell, MHCLG still lacks precise data on:

How many buildings have dangerous cladding.
The total cost of remediation.
The timeline for completion.

MHCLG’s estimate suggests that 9,000 to 12,000 buildings need remediation, costing between £12.6 billion and £22.4 billion. However, this range is over a year old, and promised six-monthly updates have not been delivered. Additionally, the PAS 9980 standard creates inconsistencies in risk assessment, leading to disagreements over the extent of remediation required. MHCLG has also failed to secure financial contributions from construction manufacturers, despite earlier commitments.

[edit] The report recommends:

MHCLG should, by July 2025:

Publish updated estimates on affected buildings, remediation costs, and expected completion dates.
Develop detailed proposals to make construction manufacturers contribute to remediation costs.
Provide a response to the Morrell report on product testing and safety standards.

[edit] Risk of Fraud in Remediation Funding

The Building Safety Fund, launched in 2020, was rushed out without adequate fraud controls, leading to over £500,000 in suspected fraud losses. Poor record-keeping and weak oversight mechanisms resulted in missing documentation and financial mismanagement. Although new counter-fraud measures have since been introduced, the scale of fraudulent claims remains unclear. MHCLG has begun working with the Public Sector Fraud Authority to improve fraud detection and prevention.

[edit] The report recommends:

By the end of 2025, MHCLG should:

Strengthen counter-fraud measures based on fraud risk assessments.
Ensure effective fraud prevention for accelerated remediation funding.

[edit] Impact on Housebuilding Targets

The UK government aims to build 1.5 million homes in this Parliament, but construction workforce shortages and rising costs pose serious challenges. Social housing providers have diverted resources to fund remediation, leading to a 90% drop in new social housing projects in London. The Building Safety Levy, designed to make developers contribute to remediation costs, could further discourage investment in affordable housing. Despite these risks, MHCLG has not conducted a formal assessment on how its policies impact housebuilding.

[edit] The report recommends:

By the end of 2025, MHCLG should:

Publish an impact assessment of remediation policies on housebuilding.
Propose actions to ensure that housebuilding targets are not compromised.

[edit] Concluding comments

The UK’s cladding remediation efforts remain slow, underfunded, and poorly managed. Despite multiple government commitments, thousands of buildings remain unsafe, and affected residents continue to bear the financial and emotional burden. Without legislative changes, better oversight, and stronger enforcement, the 2029 remediation target is unlikely to be met.

MHCLG must take urgent action to:

Address workforce shortages.
Improve transparency and resident support.
Reduce insurance costs.
Secure funding from manufacturers.
Prevent fraud and mismanagement.
Protect housebuilding targets.
Failure to act swiftly risks leaving thousands of residents in unsafe homes for many more years to come.