Barratt Supreme Court ruling highlights what the government should have done after Grenfell

Sheena Sood 2023

The URS vs BDW (Barratt) decision highlights the government’s failure to formulate an effective response to Grenfell. Here’s what it should have done instead

I visited Grenfell Tower following the fire, and what I saw will not leave me. A lot has happened since in seeking to hold those responsible to account and in seeking to avoid another such tragedy. We have seen remediation schemes being undertaken up and down the country. We have seen new legislation, the publication of green papers, the creation of the government appointed building safety regulator and chief construction adviser, and we have a new building safety gateway regime embedded for new projects, all with a fresh impetus for safety in design and safety in construction.

All laudable actions – but in terms of attempts to ensure that those responsible for defective cladding foot the bill, it has been awful to watch how this has played out. Insurers rejecting claims by their insureds for cover for fire safety claims, curtailing future exposure, the senseless expenditure on legal and expert costs instead of applying this towards settlements and companies going out of business.

I often wonder what if, in the wake of that awful tragedy, there had been a different reaction from government…

This content is available to REGISTERED users

You are not currently logged in.

LOGIN or REGISTER to access this story

Gated access promo

LOGIN or REGISTER for free access on selected stories and sign up for email alerts.

Take out a print and online or online only subscription and you will get immediate access to:

  • Breaking industry news as it happens
  • Expert analysis and comment from industry leaders
  • Unlimited access to all stories, including premium content
  • Full access to all our online archive

Get access to premium content subscribe today