UK Construction Consultants and Suppliers to Share Remediation Costs
- Michael Ghobrial
- May 22
- 7 min read
The UK is overhauling building safety accountability, making construction consultants and suppliers partially liable for fixing unsafe buildings. In a major regulatory shift, architects, engineers, and building product manufacturers can now be held responsible for a share of remediation costs when defects or safety issues are found in buildings. This change aims to protect leaseholders from crippling bills and ensure those involved in designing and constructing buildings bear the cost of putting things right. The result is a new era of accountability with significant legal and financial implications for the construction industry.
What the New Regulations Include
Recent UK building safety regulations – notably the post-Grenfell measures in the Building Safety Act 2022 – dramatically widen the scope of liability for building defects and fire safety issues:
Extended Legal Liability: The time frame for making claims over defective work has been lengthened from 6 years to 15 years (or even 30 years for historic cases). This means developers, contractors, and consultants can be pursued for building faults discovered long after completion. Even past refurbishment projects now fall under legal scrutiny if they created safety defects.
Defective Work and Design Duty: Architects, engineers, and other professionals involved in a building’s design or refurbishment now have a clear statutory duty to ensure the dwelling is fit for habitation. If a home is found “unfit” due to design or construction flaws, these consultants can be held legally accountable for breaches – a sharp change from previous rules that often shielded consultants after a few years.
Construction Product Responsibility: For the first time, construction product suppliers and manufacturers face direct liability. If a building component (for example, cladding or insulation material) is defective or mis-sold and contributes to an unsafe building, the product maker can be sued for the remediation costs. This new cause of action closes a former loophole, ensuring companies that sold flammable cladding or substandard materials can be brought into the fold to pay for replacements.
Remediation Orders and Cost Sharing: New legal tools compel those responsible to foot the bill. Remediation Orders can force landlords or freeholders to carry out safety repairs by set deadlines. Crucially, Remediation Contribution Orders enable spreading the financial burden – a tribunal can order developers or associated companies (and potentially other liable parties) to contribute to remediation expenses if it’s deemed “just and equitable.” In practice, this means if you’re a building owner facing huge cladding removal costs, you can seek an order for the original developer – or the firms involved in the project – to pay their share.
“Polluter Pays” Principle: The government has doubled down on the idea that those who caused the problem should pay to fix it. Developers of unsafe high-rises have collectively committed billions to remediate buildings they put up in the past 30 years. Likewise, cladding and insulation manufacturers were threatened with bans from the UK market unless they agree to contribute to a dedicated fund for removing dangerous materials. These measures signal that unwilling firms may face legal and commercial consequences if they don’t voluntarily chip in for safety upgrades.
Changing Accountability for Consultants
For consultants – such as structural engineers, fire safety experts, and architects – the new regime is a wake-up call. They are no longer insulated from liability once a building is handed over:
Legal Exposure: Consultants can now be sued for negligence or breach of duty well after a project’s completion if a safety defect is tied back to their work. For example, if an engineering design is later found to be structurally unsound or an architect-approved cladding system is deemed unsafe, the consultant might have to pay for the subsequent retrofit or repairs. Recent court rulings have confirmed that developers who incur remediation costs can pursue their former consultants for a contribution, even many years later.
Professional Indemnity Pressure: This shift has significant financial implications. Insurance premiums for professional indemnity cover have surged as insurers factor in the extended risk. Consultants must now budget for potential claims long after project sign-off. Some firms have started revising contracts and performing more rigorous checks, knowing that “designing to code” is not enough if the outcome proves dangerous. In practice, consultants are documenting decisions more thoroughly and sticking closely to updated safety standards to defend against future liability.
Risk-Averse Behaviour: Greater accountability is driving changes in practice. Firms are more cautious about the projects they take on – especially refurbishments of older buildings – and are likely to flag safety concerns early. There’s also a cultural change: compliance and safety considerations now take priority in the design phase, as consultants have a vested interest in preventing defects rather than facing lawsuits later. Overall, the fear of being partially liable for costly repairs is incentivising consultants to “get it right the first time” and be proactive about safety during construction.
Impacts for Construction Suppliers and Manufacturers
Construction product suppliers – the companies that make cladding, insulation, fire doors, and other building materials – are also grappling with the new accountability framework:
Direct Liability for Products: Under the new rules, if a product they sold is proven to cause a building to be unsafe (for instance, cladding that doesn’t meet fire standards), the manufacturer can be forced to pay for replacing or repairing it. This is a game-changer. Previously, building owners had limited recourse against manufacturers once products were installed; now these firms could be taken to court for damages. It effectively holds suppliers to account for the real-world performance of their products over the long term.
Financial Contributions: The government has sought upfront contributions from major material suppliers implicated in the cladding crisis. Several high-profile insulation and cladding firms have been pressed to pay into remediation funds. Those that refuse risk severe penalties – ministers have threatened to bar non-compliant companies from operating in the UK market. This hardline stance means suppliers must weigh the cost of contributing voluntarily against the potentially heavier cost of being frozen out of future projects.
Improved Standards and Testing: The spectre of liability is pushing manufacturers to raise their game. Many are investing in better testing, certifications, and transparency about how their products perform under fire and structural stresses. Marketing claims are under greater scrutiny by a new national regulator for construction products, so suppliers are keen to avoid any suggestion of mis-selling or negligence. In the long run, the industry is expected to shift toward safer, more compliant product lines, knowing that the legal and reputational fallout of contributing to a safety scandal could be ruinous.
Industry-Wide Effects on Practice
Broader construction industry practices are evolving in response to these regulatory changes:
Safety-First Culture: There is a growing emphasis on “building it right” from the start. Developers and contractors are conducting more detailed design reviews and quality checks, aware that corners cut today could result in multimillion-pound claims tomorrow. Compliance with building regulations (especially fire and structural rules) is being treated as a collective responsibility rather than a box-ticking exercise.
Collaboration and Transparency: With liability now spread across the supply chain, stakeholders are working together more closely. We see earlier involvement of fire engineers and building control inspectors in projects, and clearer documentation (the “golden thread” of building information) to track who made each decision. This not only helps prevent defects but also provides an evidence trail should something go wrong. Transparency in construction is at a premium – everyone wants records to show they took reasonable steps, in case they need to defend their work years later.
Financial Planning and Insurance: Developers and building owners are factoring potential remediation liabilities into their financial planning. Large builders have set aside provisions to fix past projects, and they vet new builds carefully to avoid latent defects. Insurers, for their part, are adjusting policies to exclude high-risk materials or unproven building methods, which in turn forces the industry to stick with tried-and-tested, compliant approaches. The cost of non-compliance is now visibly higher than the cost of prevention.
Leaseholder Confidence: Importantly, these changes aim to restore confidence for residents and investors. By shielding leaseholders from unfair costs and making the industry pay, the market for flats in high-rise buildings is slowly recovering. Buyers and tenants have more assurance that if issues emerge, the law will compel the responsible parties to act. In the long term, this accountability should lead to safer homes and a more sustainable, trustworthy construction sector.
Key Stakeholders Involved
Government & Regulators: UK authorities (such as the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and the new Building Safety Regulator) set the rules and enforce compliance, ensuring the industry meets its obligations under the law. They also facilitate funds and take action against recalcitrant firms.
Property Developers & Contractors: These are the companies that build (and sometimes own) residential buildings. They have primary responsibility for constructing safe buildings and are often on the hook first when defects arise. Many major developers have signed contracts to remediate unsafe cladding on buildings they put up, demonstrating their central role in financing and executing the repairs.
Consultants (Architects & Engineers): Professional advisors who design buildings and oversee construction now carry extended responsibility for safety. Their plans, specifications, and certifications must be thorough and compliant because they can be held liable if a design-related flaw makes a building dangerous.
Construction Product Manufacturers: Firms that supply building materials (cladding panels, insulation, balconies, fire doors, etc.) are accountable for the quality and safety of their products. They are expected to test rigorously and provide safe materials – and contribute to remediation if their products are found to be defective or falsely marketed.
Building Owners & Landlords: The freeholders or management companies in charge of buildings are responsible for maintaining them safely. Under new regulations, they can be compelled by Remediation Orders to fix problems and then recover costs from those actually at fault. They act as the lynchpin in getting remediation done on the ground, often coordinating between residents and the firms that will carry out or pay for the work.
Leaseholders & Residents: While not liable for costs under the new regime, they are key stakeholders as the people living in these buildings. Their safety is the priority of the reforms. They also have a voice – many formed pressure groups during the cladding crisis – and they benefit directly from seeing the industry players held accountable for making their homes safe.
Conclusion
The UK’s approach to building safety has fundamentally changed – shifting financial accountability away from innocent flat-owners and onto the built environment professionals and companies involved in creating defective buildings. Consultants and suppliers now face partial liability for remediation costs, which is driving a profound shift in industry behaviour. In the short term, this means higher vigilance, possible legal battles, and hefty payouts for some firms. In the longer term, it promises a safer built environment where every stakeholder, from architect to materials maker, has a strong incentive to prioritize safety and quality. It’s a new chapter for construction in the UK – one where accountability isn’t an afterthought but built into the very framework of how buildings are designed, constructed, and maintained.
