BSA - Building Safety Act

[Simonbanks]

Hello,

Can anyone advise based on recent changes to the BSA, and back dated / retrospective charges against a builder.

We have a CCJ against a builder who introduced a fire risk to our property by poorly installed under floor heating which all had to be re-done.

We took him to court and have a CCJ against his company which has now been dissolved and was a Ltd.

I believe the regulations (BSA) have now changed, allowing for directors to be held personally liable for defects that fall under the BSA as far back as 1992, so we were wondering if we could reinstate the CCJ (which has never been paid), obtained against the company and subsequently hold the director personally liable for the same debt?

Thanks in advance.

[echat11]

Hi SIMONBANKS

Welcome to LB

When was the CCJ granted against the builder?

[Simonbanks]

Hi SIMONBANKS

Welcome to LB

When was the CCJ granted against the builder?

2021

[echat11]

The thing is that the Act was enacted in 2022, the CCJ was granted in 2021, so the law can't be applied 'retrospectively'.

[Simonbanks]

The thing is that the Act was enacted in 2022, the CCJ was granted in 2021, so the law can't be applied 'retrospectively'.

This is my point, the BSA states that claims can be bought against acts that have taken place as far back as 1992 in some cases, so whilst my own claim is settled legally i.e. I have a CCJ (it was never paid, he dissolved the company), I suspect that once the BSA covers residential buildings (not sure if it does or not yet), and not just those over 18m, I could claim against the director personally, and refer back to my CCJ and the reasoning behind the claim and follow that path to ensure he is finally personally held to account, rather than (as always) hiding behind the "corporate veil", which the BSA does seem to very clearly lift.

[echat11]

It might be an idea to get some Pro Bono advice, I don't think the Courts will entertain that.
If he's still operating under another name, leave reviews, see if that gets results. I was tempted
to write, 'be careful what you write'.

https://www.womblebonddickinson.com/...%202023%29.pdf

[atticus]

Which section(s) of the Act do you have in mind? It is extremely rare that legislation imposes liabilities with retrospective effect, for obvious reasons.

[Simonbanks]

Have you read the BSA? Pretty well all of it refers to pre BSA actions, which can go back 30 years in some cases, so whilst it may have been rare, I think, (although am to sure), this opens the door to enormous retrospective action, and very much puts the emphasis on the builder keeping records. It was initiated by the tragedies of Grenfell, and retrospective action being taken regarding the cladding, so many issues and liabilities are being addressed now retrospectively in the construction industry, so am not sure your observations are correct, and please bear in mind this is "only" the construction industry which is being impacted, not further reaching legal implications (well not yet anyway). If retrospective actions couldn't be taken, there would be no fall out for ay involved parties in Grenfell, which we know isn't the case.

[Simonbanks]

It might be an idea to get some Pro Bono advice, I don't think the Courts will entertain that.
If he's still operating under another name, leave reviews, see if that gets results. I was tempted
to write, 'be careful what you write'.

https://www.womblebonddickinson.com/...%202023%29.pdf

Leaving reviews is weak, and not the point. Apart from anything the reviews are relevant to what he was, not what he is, so that isn't sound advise.

[atticus]

No, I have not read all of the Act. It has more than 100 sections. If you do not wish to point mecto specific sections, then I will not be able to consider them.

[echat11]

Leaving reviews is weak, and not the point. Apart from anything the reviews are relevant to what he was, not what he is, so that isn't sound advise.

It really isn't a case of it being 'weak'. but it might get his attention. Check with the 'platforms' first.

Hypothetically, you lodge a new claim against him, what do you think his defence will be?

[Simonbanks]

No, I have not read all of the Act. It has more than 100 sections. If you do not wish to point mecto specific sections, then I will not be able to consider them.

If you don't have any understanding of the Act, how can you possibly advise? Bit of a catch 22, so thanks but I don't think you are qualified to respond.

[atticus]

I have many years of experience in reading and interpreting statutes. It is part of a lawyer's skill set.

But you have your opinion and are welcome not to want whatever assistance I might be able to offer.