Rogue Builders

Lee Pitcher Excerpts

Thursday 13th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mark Garnier]

The hon. Gentleman makes exactly the right point. We need a balance of risk, and I will come to that point later.

Consumers of repair, maintenance and improvement building services have no protection whatsoever. There is no practical protection for consumers to avoid the highly risky, unbelievably expensive and emotionally draining prospect of prosecuting contract law. Indeed, subcontractors working on my home were also victims of the rogue builder because they were not paid, either. It is extraordinary that consumers are unprotected. When we think about the whole process of refurbishing a home or building an extension, it looks even more astonishing.

The proud homeowner seeking to improve their home will go to an architect regulated by the Architects Registration Board. They might contract a quantity surveyor regulated by the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors. They will probably need to borrow money, so they might approach a mortgage broker regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. They will get help with a mortgage provided by a lender—again, regulated by the FCA, and possibly the Prudential Regulation Authority—with advice from a solicitor regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. The money will then be deposited in a bank, again regulated by the FCA and the PRA.

The whole process is laden with consumer protection right up to the point where the money is handed over to someone with absolutely no regulation, possibly no qualifications, and no protection mechanism for consumers. As I said before, the problem gets worse, but it is worth repeating. The victim may well prosecute the case in court and win both damages and costs. But at that point the rogue builder goes bust with no assets, as pointed out by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand), and starts a new business the following day to continue the process of ripping off consumers. Meanwhile, the victim’s costs are unpaid and run into hundreds of thousands of pounds. The consumer ends up winning the moral victory but losing an enormous amount of money, while the rogue builder goes on to do the same again without any consequence.

[Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)]

As well as the financial cost, there is also an emotional cost. A constituent got in touch with me after trying to resolve an issue with leaking roof insulation. When we got involved, it took us eight months and 97 emails to get the builder back out to repair it. There is an emotional impact on the whole family. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this is an intolerable burden to put on people, and that we need to do something more?

[Mark Garnier]

Absolutely. Not only that, but if we think about the consequences, those 97 emails could have been sent for any one of the 100,000 constituents that we each have. We should not be doing this, and there should be a mechanism to sort it out.

The important reality of all this is that there is no disincentive at all for the cowboy builder to present fictitious bills and do bad work. While the consumer must engage in a risky legal process, the rogue builder can game the system with no jeopardy whatever. As we learned from Mr Bennett's story in Merseyside and the many other people who contacted me, the police will not investigate a case with regard to fraud and rogue builders, as they deem it a civil matter.

So what is the solution? How do we protect honest builders, subcontractors, merchants and, importantly, our constituents and consumers? How do we redress the balance of risk so that it does not favour the rogue builder but gives equal weight to both consumer and builder? The builder is not always in the wrong, so the solution must be balanced. Builders may occasionally need to be protected from rogue customers. The answer must lie in a scheme of regulation and licensing. In essence, what I am seeking to do—I have had a couple of presentation Bills on this topic—is get the Government to come up with a scheme of compulsory licensing for SME building firms working in the renovation and domestic improvement space. We do not know what it will be, but we need a system in which there is an equivalence of risk on both sides. There must be something that the builder as an individual can lose if he or she is found not to be doing their job properly.

My experience in this area has been with financial services and regulatory reform. Although I am not proposing anything remotely as complex as the FCA or the PRA to regulate builders, there is more than one important carry-across from financial services regulation. The first is that we do not want regulation to be a burden on the taxpayer. A licensing scheme must be self-financed through licensing fees: the building firms must pay for it.

Rules for having a licence must be straightforward. Importantly, no firm or individual should be allowed to offer services directly to customers without a licence. That in itself would result in the wider building industry policing the market. If a builder knows that somebody else is a dodgy builder, it is in their interest to report them. Mortgage lenders would require evidence that money will be spent on a licensed firm. Architects and surveyors acting as project managers would need to see licences to engage a building firm in the first place, so consumer would know what they are getting. Consumers would be able to check the builder on the regulator’s website, in the same way that they can check their pension adviser on the FCA register. The regulator could be TrustMark, which already offers voluntary regulation. There should a code of conduct covering honesty, safety and quality of work. Failure to comply should have a series of sanctions, with the ultimate sanction of the loss of licence.

An option could be a compensation scheme. The Financial Services Compensation Scheme is an example of how consumers who have lost out as a result of poor practice can be compensated for their loss from a scheme financed by levies placed on licence holders in the relevant sector. The double effect is that the consumer gets their losses covered while the industry as a whole is incentivised to keep an eye on each other. An ombudsman would be able to assess consumer loss without the need to engage expensive and lengthy legal and professional experts to defend against bogus builds or to challenge poor work. These proposals aim to end the decades-long history of consumers who have been ripped off in one way or another by shoddy rogue builders.

I am conscious of time, Ms Furniss, but I want to acknowledge that the Government have started to resolve some of these issues. A New Homes Quality Board has been set up to ensure that new homes are built to a certain standard. That is a welcome development. The fact that it has an ombudsman demonstrates that the Government and I are probably thinking along the same lines in a broad sense, but the New Homes Quality Board is targeted specifically at the new homes market. Given the Government’s target of 1.5 million new homes, it will have its work cut out. Importantly, it is not designed for the RM&I sector, which remains wholly unregulated and unsupervised. That is what the Minister must concentrate on.

Many people agree that this problem in the RM&I sector is beyond redemption. The Federation of Master Builders report on this subject in 2018 said that even construction firms themselves agree that a compulsory licensing scheme is necessary. The industry wants it too: 77% of SME builders and 78% of consumers agree with the FMB’s proposed licensing scheme.

Enough is enough. I have a few more words about my engagement so far. Unfortunately, the Housing Minister is on his feet in the main Chamber talking about the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. I was looking forward to beating him up a bit, because he has been less than brilliantly helpful. None the less, it is very good to see the Minister from the Department for Business and Trade in her place. I look forward to hearing her helpful words about how the Government will introduce legislation to ensure our constituents are not ripped off endlessly by these wretched builders.

British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme

Lee Pitcher Excerpts

Wednesday 11th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

I will not give figures, but the scheme is doing well. That is in part because of the trustees and the actions they have taken, and the investments and process they have undertaken. While the 2015 situation caused there to be a change in the way it was managed, it is now running well, and people can be reassured about that. I recognise that for many in coalfield communities, delivery on the mineworkers’ pension scheme has only heightened the sense of injustice about the BCSSS—I hear and feel that and am determined to take action on it.

[Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)]

For my 719 BCSSS members, with the scheme looking quite healthy now, does the Minister have that oomph to push it forward and expedite it as quickly as possible to get them justice?

[Sarah Jones]

I certainly have oomph, yes, and I am working as fast as I can on this. I will not talk now about the wider support that we are offering people in our former coalfield communities, but a whole raft of Government interventions are there to support people.

Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill

Lee Pitcher Excerpts

2nd reading
Saturday 12th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)]

Let me bring us back to the Bill that we are here to debate. We have heard some of the data, statistics and information, and about the finances and the associated commercial considerations. We have heard about the importance of British Steel to our defence industry and our national security, about the importance of energy and resilience, and about the infrastructure we need to build to give us the growth in this country that we can feed back and inject into the public services that so need it. Of course, the big thing here is the 3,700 jobs, and today I represent the voice of my residents in the Isle of Axholme and those living in neighbouring towns, including Scunthorpe, who are feeling it today and who are listening to every single word we say. I have to say that the risk to them and the impact—the personal impact—on them are unquantifiable. That is what I want to talk about.

Yesterday, I spoke to Richard, a fifth-generation worker at Scunthorpe who has recently finished there. He said that this is about the individual, about the families, about their colleagues and friends, and about the town. This is about their identity, and he described it in this way. He said that British Steel in Scunthorpe is the “beating heart” of the area, and over the last few years that beating heart has started to slow. As it has slowed, every time it skips a beat, as it has in the last couple of weeks, people hold their breath. They are anxious, they are scared and they are frightened. With every skip of that beating heart, people lose hope, and we cannot let people lose hope. He says to us that we need to come together and we need to pick up a community defibrillator, take it there, give it the injection of pace that it needs, and make sure that we stimulate that heart for all the generations in the future.

We have the opportunity with this Bill today to take control and to start to make that happen. We can turn British Steel—making primary or virgin steel, which is vital for all the things we have talked about—into a treasure, and not just a treasure, but a national treasure, which is exactly why we need to move this on today.

Scunthorpe Steelworks

Lee Pitcher Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I very much have a grip. We are working with officials, the Secretary of State and others all the time. In terms of the conditions that he suggests we should put on the offer of funding, the offer we made was conditional on job targets, fair terms for workers, adhering to UK law, protecting taxpayers’ money—a whole raft of conditions were set and need to be adhered to.

As for the hon. Gentleman’s haste, there was no steel strategy in the 14 years of the previous Government. We are developing one. I am not going to stand in front of taxpayers in my constituency and say, “I have spent £2.5 billion just on a whim.” We have to get this right.

We are working with industry. I was at Celsa in Cardiff this week at a roundtable of the scrap industry and the steelmakers talking about the plan. I have done roundtables with all the industries that buy steel to ensure that we understand what demand will be over the coming years. We are getting this right, which is what the taxpayer would expect of us.

[Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin) is in Scunthorpe right now, supporting our fantastic steelworkers. Many of my constituents work in Scunthorpe; I know that they will be feeling extremely anxious, and my heart goes out to them. Will the Minister confirm that she remains steely in her determination to secure the future of the UK construction and steel industries, and that she will do everything she possibly can to support my constituents who are affected?

[Sarah Jones]

My hon. Friend’s constituents who work for British Steel will, of course, be deeply worried. When I was last there in February, I talked to workers, the unions and management. This is a proud industry of good jobs with good salaries compared with the local averages. I am well aware of how anxious those workers will be feeling; I hope they can take some comfort, at least, from the fact that we are doing absolutely everything we can to secure a deal with British Steel.