AN UPDATE ON CLADDING TO BLOCKS OF FLATS

Remediation Acceleration Plan – Summary

On 2 December 2024, the Government published a Policy Paper “Remediation Acceleration Plan” in relation to speeding up the rate of cladding remedial repairs required to unsafe residential blocks of flats in England.

Seven years on from Grenfell, of the 4,834 buildings 11 metres and over in England that have been identified with unsafe cladding, work has been completed on only 1,436. Current estimates suggest that there are between 4,000 and 7,000 buildings in England with unsafe cladding still to be identified. The Government considers new measures are required to overcome the many barriers holding up progress and they intend to do more to address the building safety crisis and keep residents safe.

Government has made £5.1 billion of funding available through Government funded schemes to ensure that there should be no obstacle to action being taken to make buildings safe. Landlords must make an application to the relevant scheme according to the scheme requirements and agree works and a funding package.

For over 1,600 buildings, of which 1,452 have unsafe cladding, the developer associated with relevant construction or refurbishment work has been identified and taken responsibility under the developer remediation contract. In these cases, the developer will fix or pay to fix the building themselves.

In the social housing sector, the landlord may also be the provider of social housing, although this may not necessarily be the case. Social landlords are able to apply for support from Government schemes.

There is a route for every residential building 11 metres and over with unsafe cladding to be remediated. But despite these programmes, the Government considers the pace of remediation is far too slow, and has cited details of some of the existing barriers below:

• Landlord reluctance – significant numbers of landlords are simply not taking measures to assess and remediate buildings.
• Constrained regulatory capacity – enforcement officers are too stretched; expertise is too scarce when compared with the scale of the challenge in many areas; and the enforcement framework can be cumbersome.
• Social housing providers have varying capabilities and access to funding – some providers are making faster progress than others. Barriers to greater pace include capacity, access to funding, capability and lengthy cost-recovery processes.
• Developer inconsistency and third-party disputes – some developers are making faster progress than others. Barriers to greater pace include disputes between developers and freeholders over access to buildings and scope of works, quality of assessments, insufficient focus or delay to securing necessary regulatory approvals.
• Skilled professionals – the supply chain of skilled professionals able to meet the sector’s demands is delicate. Contractor capacity for remediation work may need attention if rates of remediation increase rapidly.
• Resident experience – the experience of remediation needs to be improved; it can be miserable and makes residents feel unsafe. Insurance costs can be unaffordably high. Residents are not heard loudly enough.

The Government’s approach is to deliver 3 core objectives:

1: fix buildings faster

Many of the highest risk buildings are known and the Government wish to ensure they are remediated at pace, while also taking action to get newly identified buildings fixed more quickly than in the past.

The Government propose to legislate to create a clear and legal duty on those responsible for buildings 11m and over to take the necessary steps to fix their buildings within clear timescales. This would be supported by significant financial consequences for inaction and a new criminal offence for those who ultimately fail to remove unsafe cladding. This will be supplemented by further powers for regulators to enforce.

2: identify all buildings with unsafe cladding

While buildings above 18m in height are now required to register with the Building Safety Regulator as part of the higher-risk building regime, 11-18m buildings – which are not classed as higher-risk buildings for the purposes of regulation - are not. Consequently, whilst 11-18m buildings are in scope of Government remediation funds, there is a gap in understanding in relation to how many of these buildings need to be remediated.

The Government propose closing this information gap and providing greater certainty to residents, by legislating to require the registration of 11-18m residential buildings. Once this process is complete there will, for the first time, be a complete register of relevant buildings (i.e. residential buildings above 11m) making the task of identifying, assessing and fixing those that require it, much faster and more straightforward.

3: support residents

The Government wish to better support residents and leaseholders through the remediation process, and will work with the HSE to see how that advice and guidance on health and safety during the remediation phase can be provided to clients, developers and the supply chain as part of the funding process and to provide signposting to relevant health and safety standards.

In respect of building insurance costs, the industry-led Fire Safety Reinsurance Facility has somewhat improved capacity in this market, but the market alone is unlikely to tackle the very high premiums some leaseholders are paying. The Government will therefore work with insurers to consider whether, for the duration of remediation programmes, Government might support the industry to reduce fire related liabilities in order to reduce the high insurance bills leaseholders are facing.

Many of these commitments will require changes to the law. In summary, the Government aim is that by the end of 2029 all 18m+ (high-rise) buildings with unsafe cladding in a Government funded scheme will have been remediated. Furthermore, by the end of 2029, every 11m+ building with unsafe cladding will either have been remediated, have a date for completion, or the landlords will be liable for severe penalties.

The Government expect to publish a further update on this plan in summer 2025 to report on progress and to reflect the second phase of the spending review.

Mr Kiziak and EWS1 Forms – Summary

Whilst we have been publishing separate Briefing Notes on this matter, the following offers a brief summary of events so far.

In August 2024 the Institution of Fire Engineers Disciplinary Panel convened to consider alleged breaches of the IFE Code of Conduct with one of their members, Mr Adam Kiziak.  The allegations comprised:

Failure to uphold the reputation and standing of the Institution and the profession of fire engineering:

• Failure to accept responsibility for work carried out by them, or under their supervision, exercising all reasonable professional skill and care in carrying out that work
• Failure to hold adequate professional indemnity insurance, where required and where exclusions in PI policy are work prohibitive failed to make these known
• Failure to exercise all reasonable professional skill and care to prevent avoidable danger to health or safety, and to prevent avoidable adverse environmental impacts
• Failed to maintain and work within professional competence
• Failed to discharge their professional duties with honesty, integrity, impartiality, and objectivity

And also a breach of the following IFE Ethical Principles;

• Accuracy and vigour

The Disciplinary Panel concluded that Mr Kiziak had breached three of these areas, namely:

• Failure to hold adequate professional indemnity insurance, where required and where exclusions in PI policy are work prohibitive failed to make these known
• Failed to maintain and work within professional competence
• IFE Ethical Principles of accuracy and vigour

Mr Kiziak was suspended at that time for a period of six months.  At the end of January 2025, the suspension was extended and the Disciplinary Panel reconvened to consider further allegations raised against Mr Kiziak.  On 7 February 2025, Mr Kiziak was expelled from the institution with immediate effect.

As a result, the individual is no longer permitted to use any IFE or Engineering Council post-nominals, nor represent themself as a member of the Institution in any capacity.