In recent years, the EWS1 form has emerged as a crucial component in the UK property market, particularly for high-rise flats. This development can be traced back to the tragic Grenfell Tower fire in 2017, which sparked heightened scrutiny over fire safety standards in residential buildings. As a result, lenders, surveyors, and purchasers alike have faced a tangled web of regulations, paperwork, and often frustrating delays.

For potential buyers and existing leaseholders, the absence of an EWS1 form poses a unique set of challenges. This article seeks to unravel the complexities faced by those attempting to secure a mortgage on a flat within a high-rise building lacking this key document. From demystifying the origins and purpose of the EWS1 form, to exploring lender behaviour and alternative solutions, we aim to provide a comprehensive guide for navigating this precarious corner of the housing market.

What Is the EWS1 Form and Why Was It Introduced?

The External Wall System form, known as the EWS1, was initially developed in 2019 by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) in cooperation with lenders and other stakeholders. Its purpose is to provide a consistent and standardised process for assessing the safety of a building’s external wall system—including cladding, insulation, balconies, and other attachments—particularly as they pertain to fire risk.

The form was intended largely for buildings over 18 metres in height, where concerns about combustible cladding and inadequate firebreaks had been rampant since Grenfell. However, over time, its use expanded. Some lenders began demanding EWS1 assessments for buildings even under 18 metres or with no apparent cladding, reflecting a somewhat cautious—and some would say overzealous—approach to perceived fire risks. This wide interpretation has led to a bottleneck in building sales and refinancing options ever since.

The Role of Lenders and Why the EWS1 Form Matters

From a lender’s perspective, the EWS1 form acts as a comforting layer of due diligence. It allows them to assess whether a given property is at significant risk of fire-related defects that could impact insurability, saleability, or long-term value. In short, it’s about minimising risk.

Without this form, many lenders are unwilling to issue a mortgage. This poses a critical barrier: even if a flat appears compliant with building standards or is located in a structure that has undergone some fire safety assessments, the absence of a completed EWS1 form often leads lenders to classify the property as higher-risk.

Some banks and building societies have adopted firm positions. They either flat-out refuse to lend on properties without an EWS1 form or apply heavily restricted lending criteria involving high deposits, premium interest rates, or limited borrowing capacity. Consequently, even well-informed buyers with good credit histories can find themselves locked out of homeownership or trapped in flats they cannot sell.

Exceptions and Evolving Lender Approaches

Despite the conservative stance initially taken by many lenders, the situation is neither static nor completely bleak. Regulatory guidance and public pressure have gradually pushed banks towards more flexible and judicious decision-making.

Back in July 2021, the UK Government and RICS updated guidance to clarify that an EWS1 form was no longer recommended for buildings under 18 metres—except in specific circumstances where combustible materials were present or a clear safety risk had been identified. This announcement aimed to reinject some common sense into the market and ease the paralysis affecting thousands of transactions.

This updated stance led some lenders to recalibrate their requirements. Borrowers may now find that certain banks are more willing to conduct their own risk assessments or accept third-party reports, provided there is visible evidence that the building is safe. Lenders such as Santander, Barclays, and Nationwide have shown varying degrees of flexibility, depending on the building height, construction, and whether previous safety works have been undertaken.

Still, the picture remains inconsistent. One mortgage application on a flat in a building without an EWS1 form may sail through at one lender and be blocked at another. This unpredictability fuels anxiety for buyers and delays for sellers, creating a heightened sense of uncertainty in the marketplace.

Impact on Leaseholders and Property Values

For existing leaseholders, the lack of an EWS1 form can have a dramatic effect on both lifestyle and finances. A flat once viewed as a long-term asset might turn into a burden, unsellable and unmortgageable. Without the document, even remortgaging to access better rates or raise capital for home improvements can be impossible.

This has led to tremendous psychological and financial strain. Some owners find themselves trapped in negative equity, as their flats are valued lower due to the perceived risks and complications surrounding fire safety. Others are stuck paying higher rates on variable mortgages they cannot refinance.

It’s important to appreciate that the problem often isn’t due to actual physical danger, but a lack of documentation. In many cases, the flats in question may well be safe, or only minor remedial works may be required. However, until an official façade system assessment is signed off by a qualified professional through the formal EWS1 process, those perceptions persist—and market values suffer.

The Bottleneck in EWS1 Surveys and Qualified Assessors

A critical factor contributing to the current crisis is the lack of qualified professionals authorised to complete EWS1 assessments. Only chartered fire engineers or related specialists with appropriate PI (Professional Indemnity) insurance can sign the forms. That insurance has itself become harder to obtain, given the liability concerns surrounding cladding and similar fire risks.

This shortage has created massive delays, particularly as thousands of applications compete for attention in a limited pool of qualified assessors. Some buildings have waited months, or even years, to begin assessments—especially in cases where freeholders have little incentive to act promptly.

In turn, these backlogs extend the timelines for transactions, sales fall through, and otherwise mortgageable buyers are driven back into the already overheated rental market. For society at large, this is a deeply inefficient outcome: suitable housing stock lies underutilised, families are unable to move for career or schooling reasons, and entire neighbourhoods remain administratively frozen while safety paperwork stalls.

Alternative Avenues for Buyers

Despite the challenges, some paths remain open to determined buyers. Though securing a standard high street mortgage may be difficult, certain specialist lenders may consider such properties on a case-by-case basis. These typically include smaller banks or private lenders willing to take greater risks in return for higher interest rates or equity stakes.

Additionally, if a buyer can offer a large deposit—usually upwards of 40%—some mainstream banks might consider lending with caveats. The idea here is that a high loan-to-value ratio provides a buffer in case the flat declines in value or becomes even harder to sell.

Another strategy buyers deploy is to thoroughly research buildings where residents’ associations or freeholders are already pursuing EWS1 assessments. If a planned inspection or remediation project is scheduled, buyers may be able to convince lenders that the safety risk will soon be addressed and thus secure conditional approval.

Transparency is key here. The more documentation and correspondence a buyer can present regarding the building’s status—such as fire risk assessments, letters from managing agents, or applications under building safety remediation schemes—the better the chances of persuading a cautious lender to proceed.

Government Support and the Building Safety Fund

Under mounting political pressure, the UK Government has launched several schemes to mitigate the fallout. Chief among them is the Building Safety Fund, which provides financial support for the remediation of dangerous cladding on high-rise buildings.

However, access to the fund has not been universal or easy. Complex eligibility rules, bureaucratic delays, and arguments over responsibility between developers, leaseholders, and freeholders have all complicated the process.

In February 2022, under the auspices of former Housing Secretary Michael Gove, the government announced additional reforms, including a legally binding pledge requiring developers to fund repairs to buildings they constructed. A new regulator, the Building Safety Regulator, was also established to oversee these transitions and ensure higher standards going forward.

These measures indicate progress, albeit slow and piecemeal. But they offer some hope that the market may one day stabilise enough to allow lending decisions to reflect actual safety assessments rather than bureaucratic default positions.

Legal Considerations and Leaseholder Rights

The legal dimension cannot be overlooked. Leaseholders often find themselves caught in a complex three-way relationship between themselves, building freeholders, and managing agents. One party may wish to expedite fire safety works and EWS1 assessments, while another may drag their feet due to cost liabilities or insurance concerns.

In such cases, legal recourse is limited but not non-existent. Leaseholders may explore tribunal actions, Residents’ Associations can form to influence management decisions, and in extreme cases, pressure campaigns and media coverage may nudge action forward.

The introduction of the Building Safety Act 2022 aims to correct many of these power imbalances, placing clearer responsibilities on developers and freeholders while offering leaseholders protections from unaffordable bills. However, the watershed impact of this legislation remains to be fully realised.

What Does the Future Hold?

While progress is evident in changing lender behaviour, reforming regulatory guidance, and government interventions, the environment remains fraught with uncertainty. Long-term solutions will depend on systemic improvements: greater availability of qualified assessors, stronger enforcement of building safety standards, and increased transparency across the property supply chain.

Buyers need to approach the situation with eyes wide open. Due diligence should extend beyond the flat’s floorplan and location; it must include a comprehensive understanding of the building’s fire safety history, management’s transparency, and the anticipation of future costs or regulatory shifts.

In time, the impact of Grenfell and the subsequent evolution of the EWS1 system may yield a safer, more accountable housing landscape. But for now, potential buyers and leaseholders must navigate a patchwork system of lender discretion, incomplete documentation, and slow-moving bureaucracy.

Final Thoughts

If you’re considering buying a flat in a high-rise building without an EWS1 form, patience, persistence, and preparation are essential. Work with experienced mortgage brokers familiar with current lender positions, gather as much supporting documentation as possible, and consult legal and survey professionals early. The process may take longer and involve more complexity than a standard purchase, but it’s not necessarily a dead end.

While the absence of an EWS1 form can be a significant obstacle today, shifts in lender policies, government funding initiatives, and evolving legislation are steadily improving the outlook. The key lies in being well-informed, realistic, and proactive—because in a market still healing from systemic failures, the empowered buyer is the one best equipped to succeed.