Cladding Compensation Conundrum: UK's Housing Crisis Post-Grenfell

A Reuters analysis reveals that despite promises, contractors responsible for non-compliant cladding have mostly evaded financial liability. The British government, while funding cladding replacements, has disincentivized legal claims. Only a fraction of costs has been recovered, raising questions on accountability and government policies.

The aftermath of the devastating Grenfell Tower fire in 2017 exposed a widespread issue: many high-rise public housing buildings in the UK were fitted with flammable cladding. The tragedy, which resulted in 72 deaths, prompted the government to declare that building contractors responsible would be held financially accountable.

However, a comprehensive review by Reuters of over 100 buildings discloses that most contractors have avoided significant financial responsibility. The investigation shows that only a small percentage of the cost to replace the hazardous cladding has been reclaimed, with few legal actions pursued against the builders.

The British government's remediation funds, while quick to cover replacement costs, have inadvertently discouraged litigation against contractors. If housing bodies were successful in legal battles, proceeds would revert to the government, while losses would be absorbed by the litigants. The cladding crisis continues, with public safety and financial accountability hanging in the balance.

(With inputs from agencies.)