The Property Care Association has opened a new membership category for spray foam removal contractors, responding to what it describes as a wave of scams targeting homeowners who face mortgage or sale difficulties because of the insulation. The move creates voluntary standards in a market with no statutory regulation, but leaves unanswered the questions that matter most to agents and conveyancers: what removal costs, how long it takes, and whether lenders will actually change their position once the foam is gone.
Over 250,000 UK homes are estimated to have spray foam insulation, according to the PCA. When incorrectly installed, the material can trap moisture, leading to damp, mould and timber decay. Lender wariness has made some properties difficult to sell or remortgage, creating demand for removal services and, the PCA reports, an influx of unregulated contractors and fraudulent operators.
What the register covers
PCA membership for removal contractors includes defined competency requirements, independent auditing, compliance monitoring, technical guidance and training. The association already operates a Spray Foam Assessor Register, which it says has improved consistency in assessments and provided greater confidence for homeowners, lenders and property professionals.
James Berry, Deputy Chief Executive at the PCA, says the organisation has received reports of scams involving claims that properties are on a "national database" requiring removal to avoid value loss. In some cases, fraudsters posing as surveyors have used fake ID bearing the PCA logo to target pensioners and vulnerable homeowners, despite PCA members not currently offering removal services.
The new membership branch is designed to create a recognised benchmark rather than statutory regulation. Berry says the aim is to help consumers and property professionals identify contractors who meet recognised standards, whilst reducing poor practice and building long-term confidence in the sector.
The gaps that matter operationally
The announcement provides no cost guidance, a critical omission for agents advising vendors or landlords. Without a range—whether removal typically costs £3,000, £10,000 or more—professionals cannot weigh removal against accepting a valuation reduction or seeking a specialist lender willing to lend on spray foam properties.
Timeframe is equally unclear. If removal takes weeks and requires structural surveys before and after, that information affects transaction planning and whether a sale chain can hold.
Most important, there is no evidence that any lender has confirmed PCA-accredited removal as sufficient to reverse a mortgage decline. Lender policies vary: some reject spray foam outright, others accept it with a satisfactory survey, and some require removal. If removal is advisory rather than contractually necessary, agents who recommend it without establishing the lender's revised position risk pushing clients into unnecessary expenditure.
The PCA has not disclosed how many scam reports it has received, over what period, or in which regions, making it difficult to assess whether the fraud risk is widespread or localised. The figure of 250,000 affected homes is also unattributed; the source, methodology and date of the estimate are not provided.
Commercial and liability implications
PCA membership is voluntary. Unaccredited contractors remain free to operate, and nothing in the announcement suggests lenders, solicitor panels or insurance networks will require PCA membership. Market fragmentation will continue unless those gatekeepers adopt the standard.
For agents, the risk is threefold. Recommending an unaccredited contractor exposes them to claims if the work is substandard. Recommending removal without lender confirmation of restored mortgageability exposes them to wasted cost claims. Failing to advise on spray foam at all, if the vendor later faces a collapsed sale, exposes them to allegations of negligence.
Conveyancers face similar pressure. If spray foam is present and disclosed late, or not disclosed and discovered during the buyer's survey, the transaction can stall. Whether removal is a contractual condition or a precautionary measure affects whether the cost falls to the vendor, is negotiated, or becomes grounds for withdrawal.
Portfolio landlords must decide whether to remove foam proactively or accept a valuation hit and restricted refinancing options. Without clear cost and outcome data, that decision is speculative.