What next for EWS1?
Matt Hodges-Long
Compliance & risk software CEO. Media commentator on Building Safety, Risk Management & Regulatory Compliance.
Last week I posted an article about the fast-growing issue of EWS1 Fraud. I was also interviewed by Nick Ferrari on LBC about the subject. In that article I covered why it was so easy to commit Fraud with the EWS1 Form and how to spot it.
This article shares my ideas for what the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), creators of the EWS1 process, and other stakeholders, such as the Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), should be doing right now to secure the process and save innocent residents from further harm.
Call the whole thing off?
The solution to EWS1 is not as easy as scrapping it. Whether we agree with the EWS1 concept or not we have to recognise it was launched in December 2019 by RICS on behalf of the lending banks. The purpose of the EWS1 Form was to give the banks better visibility of the external wall fire safety and valuation of the assets they were lending against.
Post Grenfell, the banks could no longer trust the Building Regulations, construction quality or the inspection regime that determined compliance with the regulations. Banks are commercial operations and they do not have to lend. In a functioning building control system, they would be able to trust in good governance, however, Grenfell demonstrated a catastrophic failure of governance over decades.
We cannot undo the mistakes of the past, but trusted institutions such as the RICS can choose not to perpetuate them.
What follows is my plan for how to secure and restore trust in the EWS1 process. For full disclosure most of this detail was shared with senior RICS executives by telephone and emails between 3rd and 28th September 2020 but as yet nothing has been done by them (overtly) to counter the many cases of known fraud.
Stopping the rot
Every day the flawed EWS1 process is producing more and more signed forms.
Some of these forms are legitimate and produced by competent individuals with adequate Professional Indemnity insurance. Others are produced by surveyors that do not have the necessary competence to do the work and some are produced by fraudsters.
Right now there is no way of telling how many of each are being produced, as EWS1 forms are not formally registered or reviewed by an accredited body or peer reviewed.
This is not an exhaustive list of actions, these are immediate actions that can be implemented within days to stabilise the crisis situation.
Further refinement can follow once a greater degree of control and trust has been established:
Action 1
Create a digital EWS1 Register to secure the production and distribution of EWS1. Competent Surveyors, Building Information, EWS1 Survey Report and Completed EWS1 Form can be tracked and securely shared with Building Managers, Residents and Lenders. (we have repeatedly offered the TrackMyRisks platform to run this process so no development time or expenditure required)
Action 2
Adapt the EWS1 Form to include the unique ID of the digital record and the Unique Property Reference Number (UPRN) of the block.
Action 3
Clarify the exact competence criteria for surveyors and the minimum body of work required to constitute a reliable EWS1. The current form includes 17 ambiguous ‘Could’, ‘May’, ‘Should’ references with only 1 definitive ‘Must’
In parallel with securing the process for newly commissioned EWS1 forms, we need to urgently review the surveys performed between December 2019 when EWS1 was launched and today. As mentioned earlier, nobody knows how many EWS1 Forms have been produced to date and how many are valid.
Action 4
Collate all existing EWS1 forms and survey reports. Utilise the power of the ‘crowd’ (Surveyors, Residents, Building Managers, Banks, Media) to track down as many EWS1 Forms as possible.
Action 5
Expert review of submitted EWS1 data, categorise as Fraudulent, Further Detail Needed or Competent. Follow workflow for each category including reporting to the Police and intervention where residents’ lives and livelihoods are at risk (unnecessary expenditure on remediation and interim measures). Competent EWS1 to be added to the digital EWS1 Register.
Action 6
Issue monthly updates on the progress of EWS1 at each stage of review and classification.
An open offer of help
We have given multiple offers of help to RICS and MHCLG in private to help fix the failed EWS1 process. Our offer has never been accepted. Despite all of this lost time, our now public offer of help is still open.
Head of Buying Food to Go, Hot Food & Pizza Counters at Sainsbury's
3 年Hi Matt Hodges-Long, any chance I can contact you re this issue? Should be a brief query.
Director at TetraClad
4 年So many people are associating the word fraud with the EWS1 construct that, even if the RICS were able to straighten out the ambiguities and confusion embodied in its use, nobody is going to trust it. The notes on its use are a series of modal auxiliaries rather than absolute statements, it is being used outside its intended scope, and the financial industry for which it was supposed to benefit dont understand the rules and ask for qualifications of signatories that are not mentioned or are incorrect for the type of building being surveyed. Whoever makes an accusation of fraud based on such an equivocal document will need to have deep pockets.
CEO at Merlin Insurance Brokers
4 年Matt - we should have another catch up about this when you’re free
Co-Founder & Director at Urban Change
4 年FIA has announced they will be hosting a digital register. This is great news!
Managing Director at Frankham Risk Management Services Limited & Robson Frankham
4 年Fraud apart, and I concur that this needs to be addressed, fundamentally the EWS1 form fails on many fronts. The overall intention was right in providing lenders with the assurance that they need to commit funding and safeguard their financial interest, but failing to engage with the PII markets was a major flaw. To assume that the insurance market would simply run with the idea and sign-up to unlimited liability was na?ve at best. Professional advisors have been commenting on complex building issues for years and without EWS1 forms. To this end I see no reason why we need to re-invent the wheel. Those who procure specialist services simply need to set out clear and concise terms of reference, undertake all necessary due-diligence to employ qualified and competent individuals; and ensure they have the necessary and appropriate insurance cover in place, to safeguard their interest, should that advice prove to be wrong, or negligent.