The UK’s cladding remediation programme is moving into a second, much larger phase.
The latest figures from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), covering progress to the end of July 2026, show that 2,146 of 4,697 monitored buildings have not yet started remediation. That is 46% of the identified programme still waiting to become live construction work.
The opportunity for contractors is significant, particularly across London, Essex, Kent and the wider South East. But the projects coming through this pipeline will not be straightforward recladding packages. They are likely to involve external wall systems, fire safety defects, non-cladding work, complex approvals, occupied buildings, strict deadlines and demanding insurance requirements.
In practical terms, the next few years could produce one of the largest specialist remediation workstreams the construction sector has seen. Contractors who prepare early will be better placed to win the work and deliver it without taking on liabilities they cannot properly insure.
The backlog is concentrated in the newer programmes
The government’s data shows a clear difference between the original remediation programmes and the newer routes.
The high-profile ACM programme is close to completion, with 478 of 516 buildings completed. The Building Safety Fund is also further advanced, with 487 of 639 buildings completed, 75 under way and 77 yet to begin. Social landlords self-funding remediation have reported 474 of 742 buildings complete, with a further 100 on site.
The larger backlog sits elsewhere.
Under the Cladding Safety Scheme (CSS), just 127 of 1,438 eligible buildings have completed works, equivalent to 9%. A further 269 buildings are on site, leaving 1,042 buildings, or nearly three-quarters of the eligible CSS programme, still waiting to start.
The workload is also growing. A further 2,253 buildings are at pre-eligibility stages, including 1,352 live applications and 901 pre-applications. Those buildings may not all proceed to construction, but the direction of travel is clear: the CSS pipeline is still converting assessments and applications into future projects.
The developer remediation route shows a similar pattern. Of 1,833 buildings identified with unsafe cladding, 566 are complete and 296 are under way. That leaves 971 buildings, or 53%, where work has not started.
Across the wider developer remediation contract, which includes other life-critical fire safety defects, the estimated remediation bill is now around £4.3 billion.
This is a construction opportunity, but not a simple one
It is tempting to view these numbers as thousands of standard cladding replacement contracts. That would be a mistake.
A remediation project may include:
- Removal and replacement of cladding and insulation
- Fire barriers, cavity barriers and compartmentation work
- Repairs to external wall systems
- Non-cladding fire safety defects
- Temporary protection and resident safety measures
- Scaffolding and traffic management in constrained locations
- Design development and technical assessments
- Building control approval and final sign-off
Many projects will also involve occupied residential buildings. That means contractors must manage resident communication, access, noise, dust, temporary weather protection and the possibility of discovering further defects once the external wall is opened up.
Gateway 2 is another important practical issue for higher-risk buildings. A contractor may be ready to mobilise, but the project cannot simply proceed if the design information, building control submission or approval process is incomplete. The Building Safety Regulator has created a necessary control point, although the approval process remains a source of delay for many schemes.
Contractors should therefore assess whether they are genuinely equipped for remediation work before committing to a tender. That includes technical competence, document control, experienced subcontractors, financial resources and insurance capacity.
Insurance needs to be reviewed before tendering
Remediation work can expose a contractor to a wider range of risks than ordinary construction.
A standard liability policy may respond to some third-party injury or property damage claims, but it does not automatically cover defective design, professional advice, contractual guarantees or the cost of putting defective work right. The wording and exclusions matter.
For contractors, the insurance review should usually include:
Construction Contractor Insurance
A suitable Construction Contractor Insurance programme should reflect the actual work being undertaken, not simply the contractor’s historic trade description.
The insurer may need to understand whether the business is:
- Removing or installing cladding
- Carrying out design-and-build work
- Acting as principal contractor
- Undertaking fire safety or compartmentation work
- Working on higher-risk or occupied buildings
- Using specialist subcontractors
- Accepting responsibility for surveys, specifications or certification
Contract works cover should also be checked for recladding projects, especially where materials are stored on site, buildings remain occupied or the contract requires temporary works and protection.
General Contractor Liability Insurance
General Contractor Liability Insurance should be reviewed against the contract’s indemnity requirements, the height and use of the building, the presence of residents and the potential severity of a fire safety-related claim.
Higher limits, different excesses or project-specific arrangements may be needed. Contractors should not assume that a certificate showing a familiar limit proves that every remediation liability is covered.
Professional indemnity
Professional indemnity exposure can arise where a contractor undertakes design, design coordination, FRAEW-related work, technical assessments, specification or certification.
The professional indemnity market remains cautious around cladding and fire safety. Some policies include exclusions, sub-limits or specific conditions. A contractor should check that the proposed scope is consistent with the cover available before signing a design-and-build appointment.
Our article on the PI exposure hiding in construction contracts explains why design responsibility can expand quietly through contract wording.
Historic work is another concern. If an existing defect relates to a previous project, notification obligations may arise under claims-made professional indemnity policies. Contractors should review their records rather than waiting for a formal claim. Our earlier article on transfer slabs and construction liability looks at the wider problem of legacy structural exposure.
Contract terms may be as important as the insurance
Remediation contracts are likely to contain fixed deadlines, liquidated or liquidated and ascertained damages (LADs), collateral warranties, performance security and extensive reporting requirements.
Contractors should take particular care with:
- Long-stop completion dates
- LAD rates and caps
- Obligations linked to funding deadlines
- Fitness-for-purpose wording
- Design responsibility and certification
- Indemnities for historic defects
- Requirements to obtain Gateway 2 approval
- Performance bonds and parent company guarantees
- Rights to suspend or terminate if information is delayed
The recent discussion around the Durkan v Wallace decision is relevant here. The case demonstrates that terminating a remediation contract is not risk-free. The threshold for establishing repudiatory breach is high, and a contractor or employer may find that delays, approval problems and poor records do not automatically justify termination.
The practical lesson is straightforward: keep a careful record of design submissions, information requests, approval delays, change instructions, access restrictions and extensions of time. If the project becomes difficult, contemporaneous evidence will be more useful than retrospective explanations.
Surety capacity is also under pressure. Funders and building owners may require performance bonds, advance payment bonds or other security, while contractors are already facing more detailed underwriting and tighter aggregate limits. Read our article on the surety squeeze and what it means for contractors before assuming that a bond can be arranged at short notice.
What developers and building owners should do now
Developers, landlords and housing associations also need to prepare for the next stage.
The available funding routes may include the CSS, developer remediation commitments and the new Under-11-Metre Cladding Fund, which opened on 17 August 2026 and closes on 9 October 2026.
Responsible entities should:
- Map every building, its height, tenure, external wall system and current assessment status.
- Prioritise buildings requiring a PAS 9980-based Fire Risk Appraisal of External Walls.
- Check eligibility under each relevant funding and redress route.
- Review developer commitments, warranties and historic insurance policies.
- Record all communication with residents, contractors, assessors and regulators.
- Review the Remediation Contribution Order (RCO) and building liability order (BLO) risks with legal advisers.
- Avoid signing remediation contracts before the scope, funding route and approval process are understood.
MHCLG estimates that dealing with unsafe external wall systems on buildings over 11 metres could cost between £11.8 billion and £22.7 billion, with a central estimate of £15.1 billion. Government programmes are expected to fund around £8.9 billion, while developers, housing associations and other non-government bodies may meet approximately £6.1 billion.
The department also estimates that between 5,800 and 7,300 buildings may ultimately require remediation or mitigation. With 4,697 buildings currently monitored, another 1,100 to 2,600 could still enter the programme.
That is why the current backlog should not be treated as the full market opportunity.
A practical checklist for contractors
Contractors in Essex, Kent and London should consider the following before pursuing remediation work:
- Identify the CSS, developer-led and privately funded projects likely to reach tender.
- Build relationships with competent fire safety designers, assessors and specialist subcontractors.
- Prepare Gateway 2-ready document and change-control processes.
- Review LADs, completion deadlines and extension-of-time provisions.
- Secure performance bond and surety capacity early.
- Check that PI cover responds to design, FRAEW-related and certification responsibilities.
- Review contract works, public liability and employers’ liability arrangements.
- Confirm how historic notifications and previous work will be handled.
- Make sure turnover, project values, building heights and trade descriptions are accurate at renewal.
For businesses arranging Business Insurance Essex or Business Insurance London, the key issue is not simply finding the lowest premium. It is making sure the insurance programme reflects the work the business is now being asked to undertake.
The next phase will reward preparation
The cladding clean-up is no longer just an urgent regulatory problem. It is becoming a substantial, multi-year construction workstream.
The figures show that the early ACM and high-rise Building Safety Fund programmes are close to completion, while the larger CSS and developer pipelines are still waiting to convert identified risk into live projects. That conversion will bring valuable work for capable contractors, but it will also expose gaps in contract management, technical evidence, professional indemnity and surety arrangements.
My view is that the contractors best placed to benefit will be those who prepare before the tender arrives. Review the insurance now, understand the design responsibilities, check the approval pathway and negotiate contract terms that the business can realistically perform.
If you are a contractor, developer, housing association or building owner in Essex, Kent or London, contact Moyak Insurance Services to discuss your construction insurance, liability, professional indemnity and wider business insurance requirements.
This article is for general information only and does not provide legal, fire safety, funding or insurance coverage advice. Policy response depends on the wording, facts and circumstances of each case. Obtain specialist advice before tendering for or entering into a remediation contract.
Frequently asked questions
How many buildings are still waiting to start cladding remediation?
MHCLG data to the end of July 2026 shows that 2,146 of 4,697 monitored buildings, or 46%, had not yet started remediation.
How far has the Cladding Safety Scheme progressed?
Of 1,438 eligible CSS buildings, 127 had completed works and 269 were on site. A total of 1,042 buildings, or 72%, had not started work.
Is the cladding remediation pipeline still growing?
Yes. A further 2,253 buildings were at pre-eligibility stages under the CSS, including 1,352 live applications and 901 pre-applications.
What insurance might a contractor need for remediation work?
Depending on the scope, a contractor may need Construction Contractor Insurance, General Contractor Liability Insurance, contract works cover, employers’ liability insurance, professional indemnity and project-specific or latent defects arrangements.
Why does Gateway 2 matter to remediation contractors?
Gateway 2 approval can be required before work starts on higher-risk buildings. Delays or incomplete design information can affect mobilisation, programme dates, LAD exposure and the contractor’s ability to perform its contract.
Should contractors arrange surety before winning a project?
They should begin discussions early. Remediation contracts may require performance bonds or other security, and surety providers may need detailed financial, contract and project information before offering capacity.