To: The UK government
A government scheme to insure builders in the UK domestic market.
We call on central government to introduce a mandatory, regulated, insurance scheme for all builders and architects active in England & Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland who provide their services within the domestic market.
Why is this important?
All bona fide building companies must pay for this insurance via the scheme before they can be allowed to practise, and will cover their clients for up to five years from the date of a formerly agreed handover for any problems, such as (but not limited to) subsidence or ingress of damp arising as a result of their work.
This insurance scheme will cover customers of building companies of all types after work has been completed at a customer's domestic property.
The guarantee must also include any company used by the builder as a sub-contractor, and any architect involved with the planning of new work or upgrade work for the builder.
This insurance scheme will form a guarantee for the customer and will enable them to knowingly choose a builder or architect who is regulated and insured.
They will still have a cast iron guarantee covered by the scheme for any post handover remedial work required for any reason, and particularly in the case of a builder retiring and closing down the company.
People will still have the choice to choose a properly regulated and insured builder over one who is not.
I had an extension built and concluded three years' ago which has developed damp issues through walls and ceilings.
Different subcontractors were used by the builder, example, a roofing company to fit roof tiles and lead flashing between the existing and new buildings, a flat roofing installer to fit a new flat roof over both new and existing buildings, and a patio door/window company to fit a new system to the new extension.
Three years since handover, there is ingress of damp as mentioned above.
The builder has subsequently decided to retire and close the business and is not at all interested in these issues. The builder's son has become a builder (he worked with his father in his company); the son has started a new company and is not at all interested in the issues.
I have contacted the architect, who has made enquiries with the sub-contractors, none of whom seem particularly interested in these issues and have implied that they will not necessarily pay for the remedial work.
It is therefore incumbent on me to pay which, I firmly believe, should not be the case.
This insurance scheme will cover customers of building companies of all types after work has been completed at a customer's domestic property.
The guarantee must also include any company used by the builder as a sub-contractor, and any architect involved with the planning of new work or upgrade work for the builder.
This insurance scheme will form a guarantee for the customer and will enable them to knowingly choose a builder or architect who is regulated and insured.
They will still have a cast iron guarantee covered by the scheme for any post handover remedial work required for any reason, and particularly in the case of a builder retiring and closing down the company.
People will still have the choice to choose a properly regulated and insured builder over one who is not.
I had an extension built and concluded three years' ago which has developed damp issues through walls and ceilings.
Different subcontractors were used by the builder, example, a roofing company to fit roof tiles and lead flashing between the existing and new buildings, a flat roofing installer to fit a new flat roof over both new and existing buildings, and a patio door/window company to fit a new system to the new extension.
Three years since handover, there is ingress of damp as mentioned above.
The builder has subsequently decided to retire and close the business and is not at all interested in these issues. The builder's son has become a builder (he worked with his father in his company); the son has started a new company and is not at all interested in the issues.
I have contacted the architect, who has made enquiries with the sub-contractors, none of whom seem particularly interested in these issues and have implied that they will not necessarily pay for the remedial work.
It is therefore incumbent on me to pay which, I firmly believe, should not be the case.
