3 minutes reading time
(630 words)
Why Fire Chiefs and Insurers Agree that PAS 9980 Is Not Working
The conversation around building safety has been shifting again and this time both fire chiefs and insurers are sounding the same warning. When two groups who rarely speak in unison start raising similar concerns, it is worth paying attention. For Cladding Matters, this feels like one of those moments when the pieces suddenly line up and reveal a bigger picture.
The National Fire Chiefs Council has been clear. We cannot enforce our way out of the building safety crisis. They are dealing with a system stretched thin, from a limited number of trained fire engineers to an ever growing list of buildings that need attention. When they say the current approach is not enough, it deserves real consideration. They are seeing the consequences every day and their view carries weight.
Running alongside that is the position of the Association of British Insurers. Their message is straightforward. As long as PAS 9980 allows combustible materials to remain in place after remediation, premiums will stay high. Insurers price on risk and if combustible products sit behind shiny new façades, the risk does not go away. Even if evacuation routes are improved, the building itself remains vulnerable to fire spread and significant damage. That is why so many residents who thought their building had been “fixed” are still being hit by soaring insurance costs.
This is where the heart of the issue sits. PAS 9980 was introduced as a proportionate, risk based method for assessing external walls. It was meant to break the logjam, speed up decisions and bring some clarity for professionals and residents. Instead, it has created its own complications. A building can pass under PAS 9980 even if large areas of combustible material remain. From a fire safety engineering point of view, that may be considered tolerable. From an insurer’s perspective, it is not.
Residents are caught in the middle. They are told their buildings are “safe enough” to avoid full remediation, yet not safe enough for affordable insurance. They are paying for a gap between two standards and it is hard to explain to anyone living with the reality of those premiums. Stephen Day at Royal Artillery Quays speaks often about the strain this ongoing uncertainty creates and his experience reflects thousands of others across the country.
It would be interesting to consider what the alternative could look like. The Building Safety Act sets out the “relevant defect” standard, which is already law. It is stricter, clearer and more in line with what insurers expect when assessing risk. If remediation followed that standard rather than the more flexible PAS 9980 model, there would be fewer grey areas and far less scope for combustible materials to be left in place. It could create the consistency residents need and the confidence insurers keep asking for.
Fire chiefs and insurers do not come at this issue from the same angle, yet both are pointing to the same conclusion. The current approach is leaving too many buildings in limbo and too many leaseholders paying the price. Something more coherent is needed.
This Friday on Cladding Matters, Gareth Wax in the chair will be joined by Stephen Day and myself, Hamish McLay, as we look at what all of this means in practice. We will explore why PAS 9980 is struggling, how it affects real households and what might need to change if the industry is ever going to deliver genuine safety and fair insurance for residents.
Watch Cladding Matters and all our building safety discussions on our YouTube channel “Spilling the Proper-Tea”:
https://www.youtube.com/@SpillingTheProper-Tea
For content enquiries, emailThis email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
For podcast and media enquiries, emailThis email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The National Fire Chiefs Council has been clear. We cannot enforce our way out of the building safety crisis. They are dealing with a system stretched thin, from a limited number of trained fire engineers to an ever growing list of buildings that need attention. When they say the current approach is not enough, it deserves real consideration. They are seeing the consequences every day and their view carries weight.
Running alongside that is the position of the Association of British Insurers. Their message is straightforward. As long as PAS 9980 allows combustible materials to remain in place after remediation, premiums will stay high. Insurers price on risk and if combustible products sit behind shiny new façades, the risk does not go away. Even if evacuation routes are improved, the building itself remains vulnerable to fire spread and significant damage. That is why so many residents who thought their building had been “fixed” are still being hit by soaring insurance costs.
This is where the heart of the issue sits. PAS 9980 was introduced as a proportionate, risk based method for assessing external walls. It was meant to break the logjam, speed up decisions and bring some clarity for professionals and residents. Instead, it has created its own complications. A building can pass under PAS 9980 even if large areas of combustible material remain. From a fire safety engineering point of view, that may be considered tolerable. From an insurer’s perspective, it is not.
Residents are caught in the middle. They are told their buildings are “safe enough” to avoid full remediation, yet not safe enough for affordable insurance. They are paying for a gap between two standards and it is hard to explain to anyone living with the reality of those premiums. Stephen Day at Royal Artillery Quays speaks often about the strain this ongoing uncertainty creates and his experience reflects thousands of others across the country.
It would be interesting to consider what the alternative could look like. The Building Safety Act sets out the “relevant defect” standard, which is already law. It is stricter, clearer and more in line with what insurers expect when assessing risk. If remediation followed that standard rather than the more flexible PAS 9980 model, there would be fewer grey areas and far less scope for combustible materials to be left in place. It could create the consistency residents need and the confidence insurers keep asking for.
Fire chiefs and insurers do not come at this issue from the same angle, yet both are pointing to the same conclusion. The current approach is leaving too many buildings in limbo and too many leaseholders paying the price. Something more coherent is needed.
This Friday on Cladding Matters, Gareth Wax in the chair will be joined by Stephen Day and myself, Hamish McLay, as we look at what all of this means in practice. We will explore why PAS 9980 is struggling, how it affects real households and what might need to change if the industry is ever going to deliver genuine safety and fair insurance for residents.
Watch Cladding Matters and all our building safety discussions on our YouTube channel “Spilling the Proper-Tea”:
https://www.youtube.com/@SpillingTheProper-Tea
For content enquiries, email
For podcast and media enquiries, email
Stay Informed
When you subscribe to the blog, we will send you an e-mail when there are new updates on the site so you wouldn't miss them.
Comments