Building safety tests have become ‘complete chaos’

Flawed building safety checks have left residents in the dark about whether they are living in perfectly safe homes – or highly flammable properties.

Homeowners trapped in unsellable flats thanks to Britain’s building safety crisis face a further blow as “wild and loose” fire assessments are delivering contradictory results.

It has become clear the external wall safety ( EWS1) inspections that deem whether a property is safe or requires remediation are hugely subjective.

Incorrect results could leave residents unknowingly living in dangerous buildings, while those in safe blocks can be forced to spend thousands on unnecessary repairs.

Many blocks may not require a test at all. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors will launch new guidance for valuers next week, aimed at providing consistency about when they should request an EWS1 form.

However, for leaseholders in affected buildings there are unanswered questions about how much money needs to be spent on repairs and who should pay.

Peter Kemp, 54, owns a flat in the Blue Building in Portsmouth, which he purchased as his pension.

The building, which is more than 18m (59ft) high, is unusual because it has had two EWS1 assessments – one was commissioned by the developer, Berkeley, and another by the managing agent, Encore Estates, which acts for the resident-owned management company.

Berkeley’s EWS1 was completed in August and gave the building a B1 pass rating. This means remediation work is not necessary.

A second EWS1 was completed in September and gave the building a B2 fail. The failure meant the building must have remedial works costing £1.7m, or £50,000 per property.

“We are scratching our heads; should we be going down the path of remediation? We want to make sure the diagnosis is right before we amputate the leg,” said Mr Kemp.

Berkeley, which declined to comment, will not cover the cost of works because its fire report said they were not necessary. But Encore is acting on its own EWS1. It has applied to the Government’s building safety fund, but residents have been left in an expensive purgatory in the meantime, paying £11,000 a month for a “waking watch” since October.

“The EWS1 assessment appears to be very subjective, which means really it appears to be not fit for purpose,” said Mr Kemp. “It is complete chaos.”

An Encore spokesman said: “The safety and security of residents who live in the Blue Building is paramount.”

Encore has reduced the cost of the waking watch by retraining existing site staff, and plans to install an alarm system, with government funding, so that the 24/7 monitoring can end.

The spokesman added: “Encore’s position remains that residents should not have to meet remediation costs and we are working hard with the management company, residents and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to achieve this.”

Telegraph Money knows of a major London block in which two EWS1 assessments have been contradictory.

Some EWS1 results can simply be changed retrospectively. Sarah Jones, 30, purchased her first home, a twobedroom flat in London, in February 2020. Back then, the property had a B1 rating – it was deemed safe.

But the building has insulation made by Kingspan, which made the insulation on Grenfell Tower. At the end of last year, the inquiry into the 2017 fire heard Kingspan had rigged fire safety tests. The EWS1 on Ms Jones’s building was immediately downgraded to a B2 fail without a second assessment. Suddenly, Ms Jones, who spoke using a different name, faces potentially massive costs.

“It’s the dichotomy; there is absolutely no way that we could have insured against this – all of the surveys came back clear,” said Ms Jones. “Our whole lives have just been trashed.”

Reformed Rics guidance being published within days could alleviate the issue. New rules, which are under consultation, include no longer requiring an EWS1 for buildings over six storeys with no cladding or curtain wall glazing. But Rics and lender body UK Finance declined to comment on how lenders and valuers should consider buildings with two conflicting reports.

Adrian Buckmaster, a fire engineer and cladding expert, said: “The EWS1 process has been an absolute unmitigated disaster from start to finish.”

Mr Buckmaster described the system as “wild and loose”, and said he rejected around half of the EWS1 ratings that he had been asked to reassess. “That goes both ways; sometimes the grading isn’t severe enough. Sometimes it is too severe,” he said.

Mr Buckmaster noted a building in south London that was less than 18m tall. The building had received an EWS1 B2 fail. “It complied fully with the regulations but the engineer wrote that he considered it to be a life risk,” said Mr Buckmaster. This meant residents had to find £800,000 to cover remediation works.

One tower block in east London had passed an EWS1 assessment but “in minutes I could tell them that it didn’t meet its fire strategy”, he said. “There isn’t any standard for inspection; there’s no methodology.”