On Thursday 19th February 2026 at 13:30pm, members of the UK RAAC Campaign Group met senior Scottish Government officials at Atlantic Quay in Glasgow — the Government’s central administrative headquarters.
The meeting was convened to allow campaign representatives and affected homeowners to formally present concerns regarding the ongoing Reinforced Autoclaved Aerated Concrete (RAAC) housing crisis. Officials present included Matthew Elsby, Deputy Director of the Better Homes Division, alongside representatives from Building Safety and Housing policy teams.
The purpose of the meeting was to address critical issues including the absence of a national remediation fund, calls for a Public Inquiry, legislative reform proposals, mortgage and insurance barriers, and concerns surrounding council oversight and funding delays.
While no shift occurred on the central policy positions of Government, the meeting did result in a commitment to expedite Clackmannanshire Council’s outstanding funding request — a small but tangible outcome in an otherwise unresolved national crisis.
Concerns Regarding Alleged Fraud – West Lothian
Kerry MacIntosh was invited to speak before the main agenda began. She raised serious concerns about what she believes may constitute fraud or corruption in the sale of RAAC homes by West Lothian Council.
She and Ashleigh Mitchell, leader of Craigshill raac home owners group had previously handed 2004 articles to Matt Elsby in December 2025 when the housing minister Mairi McAllan visited West Lothian.
Ashleigh Mitchell wrote (sic): "The articles proved that Almond housing association were aware of the material being in the roof & walls at the same time Deans South was condemned but yet Almond housing stated in 2024 that they only discovered raac in 2023 when the government announced them to check their housing stock, however that can't be true. The company knew."
"I hannded extensive evidence to Angela Constance MSP who then provided it to the previous minister Paul Mclennan in August 2024 pointing out that although the BRS in England stated it was acceptable, they also clearly stated "they did not view it was suitable for Scotland"
Ms Macintosh expressed dissatisfaction with the response received, which merely stated that the documents had been reviewed. She sought clarity on who had reviewed the evidence and what discussions had taken place.
Mr Elsby responded that the documents had been examined but that there would be no further action at this stage.
Mr Chowdhry asked whether officials had identified any cause for concern that might warrant referral to Police Scotland, and whether, if such concerns existed, it would not be appropriate for the Government to cascade the material to the police. He made it clear that he had not personally reviewed the evidence but was supporting Ms MacIntosh’s request for transparency.
Mr Elsby stated that it would not be appropriate for the Scottish Government to comment further. He advised that any criminal concerns should first be raised with local police, and that if a formal investigation were initiated, the Government could then consider its own position.
Ms MacIntosh requested a meeting with Deputy First Minister John Swinney to discuss the matter further. This request was not acknowledged during the meeting.
Working Group and IStructE Guidance
Mr Elsby described ongoing work through a stakeholder working group involving bodies such as Institution of Structural Engineers (IStructE) and Association of British Insurers (ABI).
We were informed that guidance produced by IStructE — and approved by ABI and other stakeholders — is intended to help ensure that properties undergoing approved remedial works are treated by lenders and insurers as though structurally sound.
However, Mr Chowdhry raised serious concerns that this framework does not resolve the injustice faced by homeowners whose properties are classified as “green” or “amber” under IStructE guidance. These households may still face:
-
Ongoing inspection costs
-
Increased insurance scrutiny
-
Reduced mortgage accessibility
-
Long-term financial uncertainty
Mr Elsby acknowledged these challenges but stated that discussions are ongoing to find best-fit solutions.
When asked about timelines for the restoration of normal mortgage and insurance arrangements for remediated homes, no clear timescale could be provided.
Innovation Barriers – The Case of Regrid
Mr Chowdhry raised concerns that innovative and potentially more cost-effective remediation solutions, such as Regrid, are not being properly integrated into national discussions.
An official initially suggested such companies had likely been approached. Mr Chowdhry was able to confirm that Regrid had not. In addition, some local authorities appear to be placing highly restrictive approval requirements on alternative remediation providers.
Mr Chowdhry stressed that Government-facilitated engagement with IStructE could streamline approvals and reduce costs for homeowners. This point was noted for consideration.
National Fund – No Change in Position
Mr Chowdhry asked directly what response had been received from the UK Government regarding repeated requests for a national RAAC remediation fund.
Mr Elsby confirmed there had been no change — the UK Government has not agreed to create such a fund.
He then asked whether the Scottish Government would step in.
The response was unequivocal: the Scottish Government maintains that funding responsibility lies with the UK Government and that it does not have the resources to establish a national fund of its own.
This remains a deeply concerning position.
Public Inquiry – Refusal Maintained
Mr Chowdhry pressed officials on the continued refusal to establish a Public Inquiry.
He referenced the dossier of evidence previously submitted to Minister McAllan, including:
-
Councils losing track of RAAC properties
-
Failure to act on structural warnings from the 1990s and 2000s
-
Slow and inconsistent Government responses
-
Evidence suggesting potential political failings
Despite this, Mr Elsby confirmed that the Government’s priority is focused on solution-based working groups and panels. It does not consider a Public Inquiry the appropriate course of action at this time.
Mr Chowdhry asked what threshold of evidence would justify an inquiry. No clear answer was given.
No clarification was provided regarding who had reviewed the submitted evidence.
Legislative Reform – Confusion and Follow-Up Promised
Mr Chowdhry sought an update on progress pursuing the UK Government regarding:
-
Restoration of First-Time Buyer status for homeowners displaced by catastrophic construction defects
-
Capital-only mortgage arrangements for homes lost due to structural failure
Despite previous written and verbal commitments made by Minister McAllan in Clackmannanshire, officials appeared uncertain about the status of these discussions.
Here is a more polished, firm, and strategically framed version — with clearer explanation of the Scottish Government’s available powers:
Initially, officials suggested that the UK Government’s position on legal reform had not changed. However, after sustained questioning, Mr Elsby agreed to raise the matter again with the Cabinet Secretary and to provide a written update by email clarifying what representations, if any, had been made.
More concerning was the suggestion from one official that the Scottish Government had no recourse to change such legislation — appearing to misunderstand the substance of the request. We were not suggesting that Holyrood could unilaterally amend UK-wide financial or mortgage law. Rather, we were asking that the Scottish Government use the full extent of its constitutional and political powers to advocate for reform.
These powers include:
-
Formally lodging intergovernmental representations to UK Ministers
-
Raising the matter through Joint Ministerial Committee structures
-
Passing a motion in the Scottish Parliament calling for specific UK legislative amendments
-
Commissioning legal opinion to strengthen the case for reform
-
Publishing a formal position paper calling for targeted amendments to UK financial regulations
-
Building cross-party support to increase political pressure
The issue at hand — restoration of First-Time Buyer status and capital-only mortgage protections for those displaced by catastrophic construction defects — sits squarely within UK legislative competence. But that does not absolve the Scottish Government of responsibility to advocate robustly on behalf of Scottish homeowners.
The concern was not about legislative competence. It was about political will.
Mr Elsby ultimately agreed to revisit the matter with the Cabinet Secretary and confirm what further steps could be taken.
Mr Chowdhry also raised the protections contained within the Building Safety Act 2022, asking why similar provisions are not being introduced in Scotland.
Mr Elsby stated that some UK laws extend to Scotland. Mr Chowdhry clarified that this Act does not provide equivalent protection to Scottish homeowners. Mr Elsby agreed to examine the legislation’s provisions and respond in writing.
Funding Delays – Clackmannanshire Case
Mr Chowdhry highlighted the delays caused by the piecemeal process under the Affordable Housing Supply Programme.
Specifically, he raised the case of Clackmannanshire Council’s funding request, submitted to the Scottish Government in a letter on 23rd January, for which nearly a month had passed without response.
Mr Elsby stated that the request would be expedited.
On housing association support, including the situation involving Almond Housing Association in West Lothian, we were told that discussions are ongoing between councils, housing associations, and Government to find workable solutions.
Time Constraints and Outstanding Questions
Due to the limited time allocated for the meeting, several agenda items could not be fully explored. Mr requested that officials review the full written agenda and provide further responses in writing.
Conclusion
The meeting provided an opportunity to articulate concerns clearly and directly. However, on the core issues — a national fund and a Public Inquiry — there has been no policy shift.
Some commitments were made to provide written follow-up and to expedite specific funding requests. Whether those commitments translate into meaningful progress remains to be seen.
The crisis continues. And so must the campaign.
The opportunity is now. What happens next will determine whether governments rise to this challenge — or are remembered for failing those who needed them most.
š§ Email: wilson@aasecurity.co.uk
š¢ Twitter/X: https://x.com/WilsonChowdhry
#RAACScandal #Petition2113 #ScottishParliament #SupportRAACVictims #EndTheSilence
No comments:
Post a Comment