Quick Answers
Does my block need an EWS1?
Only if a lender requests one because the building has external cladding or attachments they cannot assess without a fire engineer's opinion. Buildings with no cladding and no relevant external wall attachments do not require one under current guidance. Buildings below 11 metres are generally exempt. But individual lender policies vary.
What happens with an A1 or A2 result?
An A1 outcome (no relevant cladding, no further action needed) or an A2 outcome (cladding present but assessed as low risk) both allow mortgage lending to proceed for flats in the block. Lenders can use these outcomes to complete their valuations without further cladding-related conditions.
What does a B result mean for leaseholders?
A B outcome means the assessor has identified that remediation is required before the building can be assessed as low risk. Lenders will typically not lend on flats in a B-rated block until remediation is complete and a new EWS1 is obtained. This affects the mortgageability and saleability of every flat in the block.
The current position: EWS1 is a lender-driven requirement, not a statutory one. There is no law that says a building must have an EWS1. What exists is a mortgage market in which lenders require evidence of external wall safety before they will lend on flats in buildings with cladding, and the EWS1 is the standardised form that provides that evidence. The scope of when lenders can request it has been narrowed by successive guidance updates, but it remains the primary mechanism for unlocking the mortgage market for affected flats.
The practical problem: the supply of qualified EWS1 assessors has not kept pace with demand. Buildings with complex or high-risk external walls face long waits and high costs for assessments. Buildings that would receive a B outcome face the further challenge of funding remediation before a new assessment can be obtained. RTM directors in blocks with unresolved cladding issues who have not yet addressed the EWS1 position are managing a block where leaseholders are unable to sell or remortgage at mainstream lending rates.
Key Takeaways
EWS1 is a market requirement, not a legal one
No statute requires a building to have an EWS1. The form was created by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) and UK Finance as a standardised tool for lenders to assess external wall safety. Its practical weight comes from the fact that most mortgage lenders require it when they encounter buildings with cladding. Refusing to obtain one does not create a legal breach, but it leaves leaseholders unable to sell or remortgage to mainstream buyers.
Guidance has narrowed the scope of buildings that can be asked to provide one
In 2021 and again following updated RICS guidance, the categories of building where lenders can request an EWS1 were narrowed. Buildings below 11 metres were explicitly excluded. Buildings with no cladding, no balconies with combustible materials, and no relevant attachments on the external walls were also excluded. Despite this, some lenders continue to apply their own broader requirements, and individual branch-level valuers sometimes request EWS1s for buildings where guidance says one is not needed.
The form has three outcomes — only two allow mortgage lending
A1 (no relevant cladding: safe), A2 (relevant cladding: assessed as low risk, no remediation required), and B (remediation required). A1 and A2 allow lending to proceed. A B outcome blocks lending until remediation is complete and a new assessment is obtained. The distinction between A2 and B is not always clear-cut and has been contested between assessors, lenders, and building owners.
The Building Safety Act 2022 limits leaseholder liability for certain cladding costs
The Act introduced leaseholder protections that prevent certain building safety remediation costs being passed to qualifying leaseholders. Where the building has developer or freeholder liability under the Act, those parties should be funding remediation. Where an EWS1 assessment is part of establishing the remediation requirement, the cost should fall to the responsible party, not to leaseholders through the service charge. The position is not always straightforward and legal advice is often needed to establish who bears the cost in a specific block.
A B outcome does not mean the block is dangerous to live in
A B-rated EWS1 means the assessor has concluded that remediation is required before they are able to confirm the external wall system is low risk for the purposes of mortgage lending. It does not mean the building is unsafe for occupation, and it does not trigger evacuation or building closure. The fire safety position for occupied buildings is governed by the fire risk assessment and the responsible person's obligations under the Fire Safety Order, not by the EWS1 outcome.
RTM directors have a practical responsibility even though EWS1 is not statutory
Where leaseholders in an RTM-managed block are unable to sell or remortgage because an EWS1 has not been obtained and the block has relevant cladding, the RTM directors are aware of a problem affecting the value and mortgageability of every flat in their building and have chosen not to act on it. This is not a legal breach in itself, but it is a management failure that the RTM company's other leaseholders are entitled to challenge through the service charge process or through a Tribunal application to appoint a manager.
What Is an EWS1 Form?
An EWS1 (External Wall System) form is a document produced by a qualified fire engineer or chartered architect following a professional assessment of a building's external wall system. It records whether the external walls present a risk of fire spread, and whether any remediation is required before the building can be assessed as compliant for mortgage lending purposes.
The form was introduced by UK Finance and RICS in December 2019 in response to the Grenfell Tower fire and the subsequent discovery that large numbers of residential blocks had external wall systems containing combustible materials, typically ACM (aluminium composite material) cladding panels or high-pressure laminate (HPL) cladding. The problem extended beyond the type of cladding used at Grenfell to include combustible insulation, timber-framed balconies, and other external wall components that could contribute to rapid fire spread.
Before EWS1, mortgage lenders had no standardised way to assess cladding risk. After Grenfell, many simply stopped lending on affected buildings entirely, or required bespoke fire engineer reports that varied in format and content. EWS1 created a common framework, which allowed the mortgage market to resume functioning in buildings where assessors could confirm the external walls were low risk.
The Three Outcomes
No relevant cladding: safe
The external walls have no cladding or attachments that present a risk of fire spread. No further assessment or remediation is needed. Lenders can proceed with mortgage applications for flats in the building without further cladding-related conditions. This is the best outcome for leaseholders and the simplest for the mortgage market to work with.
Cladding present: low risk
The external walls have cladding or attachments, but the assessor has concluded that the risk of fire spread is sufficiently low that no remediation is required at this time. Lenders can proceed with mortgage applications, though some may apply their own additional conditions. An A2 outcome may be subject to review if further evidence emerges about the specific materials used.
Remediation required
The assessor has concluded that the external wall system requires remediation before it can be assessed as low risk. Lenders will not lend on flats in a B-rated building until remediation is complete and a new EWS1 (with an A1 or A2 outcome) is obtained. This is the outcome that creates the most acute practical problem for leaseholders trying to sell or remortgage.
The original EWS1 form used subcategories B1 and B2. B1 indicated that remediation was recommended but that interim measures (such as a waking watch or an upgraded alarm system) might allow some lenders to consider lending in the interim. B2 indicated that remediation was required with no interim lending possible. The RICS updated the form in 2021 and the subcategories have been adjusted. Confirm the current form version and outcome definitions with the assessor or with RICS guidance at the time of assessment.
Which Buildings Need an EWS1?
The RICS guidance and UK Finance guidance narrow the categories of building where a lender can require an EWS1 as a condition of lending. The current position is that a lender can only request an EWS1 in specific circumstances.
Buildings with ACM, HPL, or other potentially combustible cladding panels
Any block where the external walls incorporate cladding panels of the type that has been identified as a fire risk will almost certainly require an EWS1 before a lender will value and lend on flats within it. This category covers the buildings most directly in scope since Grenfell.
Buildings with combustible insulation in the external wall system
Even where the outer cladding layer is not combustible, buildings with combustible insulation within the cavity of the external wall may require an EWS1. The assessor evaluates the whole external wall system, not just the outermost layer.
Buildings with timber-framed balconies or attachments
Timber decking, balconies, and cladding on balcony structures can contribute to fire spread. Where these are present, a lender may request an EWS1. This has been a source of significant controversy, particularly for blocks where the primary structure is non-combustible but the balconies are timber-framed.
Buildings above 18m with any external wall concerns
Higher-risk buildings (above 18 metres) with any external wall features that could raise concern are likely to require an EWS1 before lenders will engage with them. The height threshold interacts with the Building Safety Act's higher-risk building regime and the scrutiny applied by both lenders and the Building Safety Regulator.
Buildings below 11 metres
RICS guidance explicitly states that buildings below 11 metres should not require an EWS1. Where a lender or valuer requests one for a sub-11-metre building, the building owner or RTM company can refer to the RICS guidance and the lender's own policy documentation to challenge the requirement.
Buildings with no cladding and no relevant attachments
Where the external walls are brick, stone, or render with no cladding panels, no combustible insulation, and no timber-framed balconies or attachments, an EWS1 should not be required under current guidance. A valuer who requests one for such a building can be challenged by reference to the RICS valuation guidance.
The Lender Position in 2026
The mortgage market's approach to EWS1 has evolved considerably since 2019, and lender policies in 2026 are more nuanced than the immediate post-Grenfell position of blanket refusal to lend on any affected building.
| Lender position | What It Means in Practice |
|---|---|
| Mainstream lenders (A1 or A2 outcome) | Most mainstream lenders will lend on flats in buildings with an A1 or A2 EWS1 outcome. The form provides the evidence they need to satisfy their own internal risk requirements. Valuers can produce market valuations without cladding-related qualifications, allowing sales and remortgages to proceed at standard market rates. |
| Mainstream lenders (B outcome) | Most mainstream lenders will not lend on flats in buildings with a B outcome until remediation is complete and a new A1 or A2 EWS1 is obtained. The flat may be effectively unmortgageable to standard buyers. Cash buyers and specialist lenders may still transact, typically at a discount reflecting the remediation risk. |
| Buildings where EWS1 not yet obtained | Where a building has cladding and no EWS1 exists, lenders may place a cladding qualification on their valuation, declining to provide a value or lending against the flat until an EWS1 is obtained. This is functionally equivalent to a B outcome in terms of its effect on the mortgage market for that flat. |
| Individual lender variation | Despite the RICS guidance, individual lenders retain their own policies and some apply stricter requirements than the baseline. A building that RICS guidance would say does not need an EWS1 may still be flagged by an individual lender's valuation team. Brokers specialising in cladding-affected properties can identify lenders with more accommodating policies for specific building types. |
| Developer remediation commitments | Where a developer has given a legally binding remediation commitment under the Building Safety Act or through a remediation contract, some lenders will lend against flats in the building ahead of remediation completing, on the basis that the liability to remediate has been clearly established. This requires the commitment to be in an acceptable legal form that the lender's solicitors can review. |
Who Commissions and Pays for an EWS1?
The practical and legal answer to this question has shifted significantly since the Building Safety Act 2022 came into force.
Before the Act, the cost of commissioning an EWS1 assessment typically fell to the building owner or managing agent, and was recoverable through the service charge. This meant leaseholders were funding assessments that revealed problems that the developer had created and that the leaseholders were then also expected to fund remediation for. The Act changed this in several important respects.
Under the Building Safety Act:
- Developers who built or refurbished residential buildings in the past 30 years face legal liability to fund remediation where the building was constructed or refurbished with relevant defects. This liability is not limited to Grenfell-type ACM cladding; it extends to any relevant defect.
- Qualifying leaseholders are protected from having building safety remediation costs passed to them through the service charge, subject to conditions about the original purchase price and other qualifying criteria.
- Freeholders and landlords who are not developers face a separate liability regime, including caps on what can be passed to leaseholders depending on the landlord's net worth.
The cost of commissioning an EWS1 assessment itself — distinct from the cost of remediation it may recommend — sits in a more ambiguous position. Where the assessment is part of establishing whether remediation is needed and who is liable, the cost may properly fall to the developer or freeholder rather than to leaseholders. Where the RTM company commissions an assessment voluntarily to unlock the mortgage market for its leaseholders, the cost is typically recoverable through the service charge, subject to it being reasonable and within the scope of the RTM company's management obligations.
Legal advice is recommended before the RTM company commissions an EWS1 for a block where cladding concerns exist, to establish whether there is a developer or freeholder liability that should be enforced first.
What RTM Directors Should Do
The starting point for any RTM director whose block has external cladding or external wall features of concern is to establish the current EWS1 position.
- Check whether an EWS1 already exists. The managing agent should hold this. If not, the previous managing agent may have one on file. Some freeholders commissioned assessments before RTM was exercised and passed the documentation on handover. Check before commissioning a new assessment.
- Confirm whether your block falls within scope. If the building is below 11 metres, made of brick or stone with no cladding panels, no combustible insulation, and no timber-framed balconies, it may fall outside the categories where an EWS1 can be required. Confirm this with the RICS guidance and your managing agent.
- If the block is in scope and no EWS1 exists, assess whether there is developer or freeholder liability. If the cladding was installed by the developer as part of original construction or a subsequent refurbishment, there may be a liability to enforce before spending service charge funds on an assessment. Take legal advice on this before proceeding.
- If you need to commission an assessment, use a qualified assessor. RICS and the Building Research Establishment maintain registers of assessors qualified to complete EWS1 forms. Do not accept an assessment from an unregistered surveyor, regardless of their general credentials.
- Communicate the position to leaseholders clearly. Leaseholders who are trying to sell or remortgage need to know the EWS1 status of their building. An RTM company that knows the status and does not communicate it is creating unnecessary anxiety and potential complaints.
For how the Building Safety Act's leaseholder protections interact with cladding remediation costs, see the forthcoming post on Cladding Remediation Funding: Who Pays and How Leaseholders Can Access It. For the Building Safety Act obligations that apply to 11-18m blocks, see The Building Safety Act and 11-18m Blocks: What RTM Directors Must Do Now.
Frequently Asked Questions
An EWS1 (External Wall System) form is a document produced by a qualified fire engineer or chartered architect after assessing a building's external walls. It records whether the external walls present a fire spread risk and whether remediation is required. It was introduced in 2019 to give mortgage lenders a standardised way to assess cladding safety. The form has three outcomes: A1 (safe, no cladding concern), A2 (cladding present but low risk), and B (remediation required).
No. An EWS1 is only needed where a lender requests one because the building has cladding or relevant external wall attachments. Buildings below 11 metres, and buildings with no cladding, no combustible insulation, and no timber-framed balconies are generally outside scope under current RICS guidance. Individual lenders may apply stricter policies.
There is no fixed expiry date, but an EWS1 reflects the condition of the external wall at the date of assessment. Material changes to the building, new evidence about specific materials, or completed remediation works may trigger the need for a new assessment. Some lenders apply their own maximum age requirements. Five years is a commonly cited practical guide, but always check with the specific lender involved.
Under the Building Safety Act 2022, developers who built or refurbished buildings with relevant defects face liability for remediation costs, and qualifying leaseholders are protected from having those costs passed to them. The cost of the EWS1 assessment itself sits in a more ambiguous position. Where developer or freeholder liability exists, take legal advice before spending service charge funds on an assessment. Where no such liability exists, the RTM company can typically recover the assessment cost through the service charge as a reasonable management expense.
It depends on the building and the buyer's lender. If the building has relevant cladding and the buyer's lender requires an EWS1, the sale will stall until one is obtained or an alternative form of evidence is accepted. Cash buyers and some specialist lenders may proceed without one. The absence of an EWS1 substantially restricts the buyer pool and affects the achievable price. For blocks where sales are being affected, commissioning an EWS1 is typically in the interests of the RTM company and all leaseholders.
Block with cladding and no EWS1 position established?
Neon's building safety compliance audit covers EWS1 status as part of the review for blocks with external wall concerns. We confirm whether your block is in scope, whether an existing assessment is current, and whether there is developer or freeholder liability that should be enforced before service charge funds are spent. At £88, it is the starting point for RTM directors who are managing a block without a clear picture of their cladding position.
Book a compliance audit — £88 →