The Government has set out proposals that could widen protection from certain building-safety bills for more leaseholders in England. The package would also provide planned funding for some collectively owned or enfranchised blocks and seek contributions from relevant construction-product manufacturers towards the cost of historic remediation.
The measures were announced during the House of Commons second reading of the Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill on 27 October. They are proposals, not rules that have already taken effect. Further amendments, detailed eligibility rules and the way any funding or manufacturer-contribution scheme would operate have yet to be set out.
Where the current protections can leave gaps
Existing building-safety protections cover many leaseholders, but the status of a lease can depend on the circumstances of the person who owned the flat on 14 February 2022. A flat can be affected where it was not the previous owner’s only or main home, or where that owner did not meet the applicable property-ownership limit. That status can follow the lease when the home is sold.
As a result, someone who later buys a flat as their only or principal home can still fall outside some protections because of a previous owner’s circumstances. The Government is examining how to narrow that gap. It has not yet published the final test that would determine who qualifies, so current and prospective leaseholders should not treat the announcement as an automatic change in their position.
A separate proposed change would raise the ownership threshold from three to six properties for leaseholders facing non-cladding building-safety costs that they did not cause. The proposal concerns people who owned four, five or six properties on the qualifying date. It would need to be put into the Bill and agreed through Parliament before it could take effect.
Funding proposed for collectively owned buildings
The package also addresses buildings that are collectively owned or have been enfranchised. In those arrangements, residents may own or control their building without a separate freeholder. That can leave them outside parts of the existing leaseholder-protection framework and exposed to costs for work on their homes.
Grant funding is proposed for eligible collectively owned and enfranchised buildings with high-risk, high-cost internal fire-safety defects. The announcement does not set out a budget, the level of support available, the application process or a definitive list of qualifying defects. It therefore does not guarantee that every block under resident control will receive funding. Those details will be important in deciding which buildings can benefit and what costs may remain.
Planned contribution from product manufacturers
The Bill already contains measures intended to improve routes for recovering remediation costs from manufacturers of unsafe construction products. The new announcement goes further: planned amendments would give the Government powers to require relevant manufacturers to contribute towards remediation costs met by the taxpayer.
The policy is aimed at historic unsafe cladding and insulation products. It does not identify any individual company as responsible, and the announcement does not establish responsibility in any particular building. The scope of the proposed scheme, how contributions would be calculated, which manufacturers would be covered and the process for challenging decisions are all still to be published or introduced as the Bill progresses.
What happens next
The Bill was introduced earlier this month and has now reached its second-reading stage. It must still complete detailed parliamentary scrutiny and receive Royal Assent before it can become law. Some elements may also require further regulations or administrative arrangements after that point.
For residents facing building-safety costs, the distinction between an announcement and an enforceable entitlement matters. The proposals point to a broader approach to costs that have fallen into gaps in the existing framework, but they do not settle individual bills or create an immediate new route to funding. The eventual legislation may change as it is examined, and key eligibility and scheme-operation details are intended for publication at a later stage.
The immediate development is therefore a policy commitment attached to the Bill’s next parliamentary stage. Its practical effect will depend on the amendments eventually made, the funding rules that accompany them and whether the Bill completes its passage through Parliament.
