Research and analysis

Remediation Programme Insurance Survey: research summary

Published 9 July 2026

Introduction

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) continues to monitor the buildings insurance market as part of our work to support leaseholders in multi-occupancy buildings undergoing remediation.

In September 2022 the Financial Conduct Authority published a report on insurance for multi-occupancy buildings. The FCA found that the mean prices for buildings insurance for high rise buildings had risen by 125% in the years following the Grenfell tragedy. This was primarily driven by buildings with flammable cladding or other material fire safety risks.

The department published the Remediation Acceleration Plan (RAP) in December 2024 and an update in July 2025, which set out measures so that buildings with unsafe cladding are fixed faster and that residents are supported throughout the process. In the RAP, it was announced that government would work with the insurance industry to consider options for possible government support. MHCLG has been engaging with industry on this and needed to collect data as part of this work to assess the feasibility and scope of any options.

The department therefore launched the Remediation Programme Insurance Survey in the summer of 2025 to gather additional data on buildings insurance for buildings in all remediation programmes across the UK.

This report summarises the methodology and findings from the survey.

Survey methodology

The survey was devised by MHCLG with support from a cross-government buildings insurance working group. The survey contained 35 to 41 questions (depending on recipient group), both open ended and multiple choice, and was issued via Microsoft Forms, with a bulk return spreadsheet available for returns covering multiple buildings. The fields included questions on:

• basic respondent and building details
• building characteristics and remediation dates
• current and historic buildings insurance policy information
• insurance claims
• commission levels

The survey was sent to the responsible entities (building owners and landlords) for buildings in each remediation programme separately as follows:

• Cladding Safety Scheme (CSS) – including England and Northern Ireland - sent directly to responsible entities using contact details provided by Homes England. Only sent to buildings with live applications, excluding buildings which had completed remediation

• Building Safety Fund (BSF) and Aluminium Composite Material Cladding Remediation Fund (ACM) - sent directly to responsible entities using contact details provided by the Greater London Authority. Sent to buildings which were still undergoing remediation and to buildings which had completed remediation

• Social Housing Remediation - sent directly to all registered providers with buildings undergoing remediation using data provided by the Regulator of Social Housing. Only sent to buildings with a remediation plan in place or that were actively undergoing remediation

• Responsible Actors Scheme (RAS) - sent to developers in the Remediation Action Group to share with responsible entities for their buildings and then sent directly to responsible entities by MHCLG where individual building contact details were held. Sent to buildings both undergoing remediation and which had completed remediation. This programme also includes buildings undergoing work for internal defects as well as external defects

• Welsh Building Safety Fund - sent directly to responsible entities by the Welsh Government. Only sent to buildings with a remediation plan in place or actively undergoing remediation. This programme also includes buildings undergoing work for internal defects as well as external defects

Buildings in Scotland were not surveyed as part of the Remediation Programme Insurance Survey.

The survey was first issued on 30 April 2025 to buildings in the CSS and circulation to all remediation programmes was completed by 30 May 2025. The survey officially closed on 31 July 2025, but late returns were included in our analysis if received by 14 August 2025.

MHCLG and the Welsh Government tracked returns and issued chasers to responsible entities, including targeted engagement with the largest responsible entities responsible for many buildings. This was supplemented by additional engagement and promotional activity to maximise responses, including:

• engagement with MHCLG stakeholder groups including developers, freeholders, managing agents, the Leasehold Advisory Service, leasehold groups, the National Housing Federation and Local Government Association
• sharing details with insurance industry trade bodies and members to signpost the survey
• signposting the survey in MHCLG correspondence replies regarding buildings insurance
• alerts on Homes England’s portal for CSS applicants
• survey information in the Building Safety Regulator’s e-bulletins to responsible entities

Data analysis, quality assurance, and limitations

The data collected from this survey was collated and analysed by the Government Actuary’s Department (GAD) on behalf of MHCLG.

All work followed GAD’s established quality assurance processes. Individual raw data files were received and collated. Where necessary, data files were reformatted and fields were mapped into consistent structures to enable collation. A proportionate approach was used to check entries for the most material fields, focusing on blanks and values that appeared orders of magnitude larger or smaller than reasonable. Only data considered credible was retained for analysis and referred to as the ‘filtered dataset’.

The analysis is reliant on the data received. The information is self-reported by responsible entities and may contain errors, and respondents did not always provide all the information requested. The sample may also be subject to response bias, depending on which parties were most motivated to complete the survey – such as buildings with high insurance costs. Results are unlikely to be representative of all buildings requiring remediation as responses may not be proportionate by remediation programme or by stage of remediation, particularly as the survey was not sent to CSS buildings that had completed remediation. Although steps were taken to clean the data to improve its reliability, the results should be interpreted as indicative of general trends only. Where the survey findings have informed decision making, it has been considered alongside other sources of information and not relied upon in isolation given its limitations.

Summary of results

Response rate

The survey received 2,635 initial responses. From these initial responses the data was filtered to remove items identified as unreliable (see ‘Data analysis, quality assurance, and limitations’) leaving 2,029 responses from which these findings were derived.

Table 1 provides an overview of the number of buildings in the filtered dataset based on their programme. It shows that almost half (45%) of the responses are from buildings in the CSS.

Table 1: Buildings in the filtered dataset by programme

Programme	Number of buildings in sample	% of sample	Further information about the programme
Building Safety Fund and Aluminium Composite Material Remediation Fund	24	1%	Building Safety Fund
Cladding Safety Scheme	912	45%	Cladding Safety Scheme
Responsible Actors Scheme	432	21%	Responsible Actors Scheme
Social Housing	624	31%	Data provided by local government and housing associations
Welsh Building Safety Fund	21	1%	Welsh Building Safety Fund
Unknown	16	1%	Not applicable
Total	2,029	100%	Not applicable

Average building premiums

The average (mean) total premium over the last renewal period across the sample was £20,000 per building. The average building sum insured was £15 million.

Premium rates

Premium rates are calculated as the total premium divided by the building’s sum insured. This measure is used to account for the value of each building, allowing buildings to be compared on a more like-for-like basis across buildings of different sizes and insured values. The average premium rate across the sample was 0.11%.

Average premium rates varied depending on whether respondents reported that flammable cladding or other external defects were present on buildings. The average premium rate was 0.14% for buildings where cladding or other external defects were still present (992 buildings), compared with 0.09% where cladding or other external defects were not present, or where information on their presence was unavailable (1,037 buildings). This could be due to either the building having had the cladding removed, or because the building was part of a programme where buildings which only had internal defects were eligible to join (RAS, Welsh Building Safety Fund). 

Most buildings in the sample (79%) reported premium rates at or below 0.15%, with 5% (93) of buildings having premium rates above 0.3% (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Distribution of premium rates across all buildings in the sample

This figure shows the following data:
0% to 0.05%: 638 buildings (31%)
>0.05% to 0.1%: 597 buildings (29%)
>0.1% to 0.15%: 376 buildings (19%)
>0.15% to 0.2%: 166 buildings (8%)
>0.2% to 0.25%: 125 buildings (6%)
>0.25% to 0.3%: 34 buildings (2%)
>0,3%: 93 buildings (5%)

Premiums by residential unit

When weighted by the number of residential units e.g. flats, the average premium per unit was £450. 86% (79,000) of residential units reported premiums below £900 per year. Around 3% (3,200) of residential units were being charged more than £1,800 annually (see Figure 2).

Figure 2: Distribution of premiums per residential unit in the sample

This figure shows the following data:
£0 to £300: 49,785 units (54%)
>£300 to £600: 20,753 units (23%)
>£600 to £900: 8,302 units (9%)
>£900 to £1,200: 6,520 units (7%)
>£1,200 to £1,500: 2,047 units (2%)
>£1,500 to £1,800: 1,499 units (2%)
>£1,800 to £2,100: 1,510 units (2%)
>£2,100 to £2,400: 330 units (0%)
>£2,400 to £2,700: 442 units (0%)
>£2,700 to £3,000: 173 units (0%)
>£3,000 to £3,300: 246 units (0%)
>£3,300: 491 units (1%)

Excess

The survey gathered information on the typical excess for fire and water claims. There was a high-level of variability across building policies (see Figure 3), with some buildings reporting low excess levels and some reporting very high levels (ie, greater than £1 million). There was inconclusive evidence as to whether buildings in the sample with flammable cladding, or high premium rates, had higher excesses.

In Figure 3, where a respondent provided multiple excess values, the lowest value was used when producing the figures.

Figure 3: Distribution of fire and water excesses across all buildings in the sample

This figure shows the following data:
Less than £1,000: water excess 641 buildings (32%), fire excess: 708 buildings (35%)
£1,000 to £4,999: water excess 118 buildings (6%), fire excess 46 buildings (2%)
£5,000 to £9,999: water excess 108 buildings (5%), fire excess 32 buildings (2%)
£10,000 to £24,999: water excess 356 buildings (18%), fire excess 347 buildings (17%)
£25,000 to £49,999: water excess 226 buildings (11%), fire excess 288 buildings (14%)
£50,000 to £99,999: water excess 240 buildings (12%), fire excess 248 buildings (12%)
£100,000 to £249,999: water excess 329 buildings (16%), fire excess 347 buildings (17%)
£250,000 to £499,999: water excess 2 buildings (0.1%), fire excess 2 buildings (0.1%)
£500,000 to £999,999: water excess 2 buildings (0.1%), fire excess 3 buildings (0.1%)
£1,000,000 and above: water excess 7 buildings (0.3%), fire excess 8 buildings (0.4%)

Next steps

The department will continue to monitor insurance costs across remediation programmes and gather additional data to strengthen the evidence base. Updated findings will be published as further information becomes available.