ACM cladding on high-rise buildings
Case reference FOI2026/01283
Received 8 October 2026
Published 12 November 2026
Request
I would like to request the following information regarding buildings:
1) A list of high-rise buildings in London (18 metres and over in height) identified as currently having Aluminium Composite Material (ACM) cladding deemed unsafe or non-compliant with safety standards.
2) The management entity responsible for these buildings (e.g., the council, housing associations, private companies, etc.)
3) If this information is held by the LFB, the owner of each of these buildings.
4) The premises address of each of these buildings.
Response
In response, London Fire Brigade holds information falling within the scope of your request. However, we consider this information to be exempt from disclosure under section 38(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), which applies where disclosure would, or would be likely to, endanger the safety of any individual.
The information requested would identify specific residential buildings which are known to have unsafe ACM cladding and which may be subject to interim fire safety measures pending remediation. Disclosure of a consolidated list of such premises, together with their locations and associated ownership or management details, would highlight buildings that are known to present an increased fire safety risk. We consider that disclosure would be likely to endanger the safety of residents, visitors and others who may be present in those buildings by increasing the risk of the information being used by individuals with malicious intent to identify and target vulnerable premises.
While information relating to buildings may have been disclosed previously in response to earlier Freedom of Information requests, the Brigade has reviewed its approach and now considers that the ongoing disclosure of a comprehensive and updated list of affected buildings would be likely to increase risks to the safety of occupants. The continued existence of buildings awaiting full remediation, and the potential value of a consolidated list of vulnerable premises have led us to conclude that continued disclosure is no longer appropriate.
Section 38 is a qualified exemption and therefore requires consideration of the public interest test.
Arguments in favour of disclosure
There is a significant public interest in transparency regarding building fire safety and in understanding the extent of ACM cladding remaining within London. Disclosure would promote accountability of building owners and responsible entities, contribute to public debate regarding building safety, and assist the public in understanding the progress being made to remediate affected buildings.
Arguments in favour of maintaining the exemption
There is a strong public interest in protecting individuals from risks to their physical safety. Disclosure would place into the public domain a single, comprehensive source of information identifying buildings known to have serious fire safety vulnerabilities. We consider that such information could be used to facilitate malicious activity, including deliberate fire-setting or other acts intended to endanger residents and occupiers. Disclosure may therefore increase risks to those living, working or visiting the buildings concerned, as well as firefighters and other emergency responders who may be required to attend any incident at those premises.
The Brigade considers that the public interest in safeguarding the safety of residents, members of the public and emergency responders outweighs the public interest in disclosure. Accordingly, the information is exempt from disclosure under section 38(1)(b) of the FOIA.
Documents
This is London Fire Brigade's response to a freedom of information (FOI) or environmental information regulations (EIR) request.
You can browse our other responses or make a new FOI request.