[suvelx]

This doesn't change the fact that regardless of height, the residents in those buildings are having hundreds of thousands of pounds of debt forced onto them because of a retroactive law change.

And While Non-ACM cladding isn't illegal, it's still being treated as a risk for 'low-rise' buildings. It's still resulting in surveyors deeming the property unsafe, and it's still resulting in the leaseholders (not owners) of those buildings having to pay millions to 'remediate' it.

This coupled with decades of deregulation, poor construction and minimal oversight has resulted in over 5% of the market suffering from the same problems, ACM, Non-ACM, 50 meters tall, or 5 meters tall.

And nearly all of it is driven by the banks. The government has only banned ACM cladding, The banks have done the rest.

The banks don't give a shit that your odds of jump out your window are 50%. The banks just want to make sure the property they've given you a loan against doesn't burn down when you die from the fall.

[Retric]

Interesting, by banks do you mean insurance companies as well or are banks specifically at the short of this issue?

[suvelx]

Mostly banks. Insurance has a part to play.

My understanding is:

In 2018 the government banned ACM cladding.

Shortly afterwards RICS (Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors) developed the "External Wall System" or "EWS-1" form. Which is a means of assessing the risk of cladding (external wall systems) to a building. This was not a legal requirement. It is merely a tool to assess risk. It does not even specify the credentials required to issue one, just "suitably experienced".

Surveyors carrying out an EWS-1 form would effectively be on the hook for any damages if they made the wrong call, This ended up being reflected in their insurance, so most if not all would perform a full top-to-toe inside-out fire-safety survey. These full surveys have resulted in other defects in most buildings being found. Combustible material used in balconies, insufficient fire and smoke barriers between dwellings, faulty or incorrectly installed fire doors. Note These 'defects' aren't necessarily illegal or against code, they just push the perceived risk of the building past the surveyors acceptable risk.

Banks, being horribly risk-adverse made an EWS-1 a requirement for loans on buildings over 18 meters.

Somebody in Parliament said something along the lines of "All buildings should be safe". Banks then started making the EWS-1 a requirement for all loans of multi-tenant dwellings.

But someone is always responsible for ensuring a building is 'safe'. A poor EWS-1 result means someone has to make it safe. This someone is generally the buildings Management Company, or the Freeholder (who is entitled to recover those costs from the leaseholders).