Contractors must be made to pay for defective buildings they constructed

So what is the difference between a house builder and a contractor? Broadly speaking, house builders build on their own land and then sell the homes, whereas contractors are contracted to build on someone else’s land. In terms of responsibility for creating homes that are safe to live in, there should be no difference.

While the government has made it clear on several occasions that contractors should be paying for these costs – new housing secretary Greg Clark reiterated this recently in his first speech on the matter – many of these companies are categorically denying their responsibilities.

“These costs cannot be allowed to once again fall on the shoulders of innocent leaseholders and charitable organisations supporting those most in need”

A few weeks ago, one of these cases came to a head. Hyde Group won a landmark case against building contractor Mulalley & Co, which was ordered to repay the housing association for the costs of replacing cladding on five tower blocks, as well as the costs of waking watch to alert residents of a fire.

This case was important. But practically speaking, many, particularly smaller housing associations, do not have the funds to take these companies to court. And it is unlikely that this case will be enough to force the hand of other contractors similarly liable.

I know of providers that have already spent several millions making a building safe, as well as close to a million in legal fees pursuing the contractor.

Despite being advised that they too would likely win a case in court, the additional costs of taking these contractors all the way to trial – in the several millions – could put them out of business. Indeed, this is often the tactic being employed: the contractors involved are banking on the providers running out of money before justice can be served.

Meanwhile, the funds committed so far are coming directly from the people social housing providers exist to support, originally intended to maintain homes and provide services for social and supported housing residents and provide new homes for homeless people.

This situation is unsustainable and has created a two-tier system based purely on luck of the draw.

Although leaseholder costs are capped, some will still end up receiving bills. With legal responsibility and existing pressure proving not to be enough, the government must step in. These costs cannot be allowed to once again fall on the shoulders of innocent leaseholders and charitable organisations supporting those most in need.

Mr Clark has made a promising start as housing secretary, announcing last week that he will be finalising pledges made by house builders to remediate buildings they constructed and confirming that the £3bn Building Safety Levy will not be reversed, despite the industry requesting this in a letter upon his appointment.

He must now build on Mr Gove’s legacy and negotiate with contractors, forcing these companies to step up and pay for the defective buildings that they constructed.

Kate Henderson, chief executive, National Housing Federation