Mark Thomas looks at the Welsh homeowners shouldering the costs of the post-Grenfell fire cladding crisis, and how the group known as the ‘Welsh Cladiators’ are fighting for justice.
In his ambitious two-volume work, The Humanity of Private Law, Cambridge legal scholar Nicholas J. McBride argues that the core purpose of English (and by extension Welsh) private law is not merely the maximisation of wealth or the formal protection of independence between parties. Rather, it is the promotion of human flourishing: the conditions that allow people to live reasonably secure, healthy, and purposeful lives. These include physical safety and health, stable homes free from constant anxiety, the ability to plan for the future (including selling or moving), meaningful relationships and projects, and membership in a society that does not abandon its members to avoidable danger or ruin.
The post-Grenfell fire cladding and building safety crisis stands as a stark real-world test of that claim. Across England and Wales, hundreds of thousands of ordinary homeowners discovered that the flats they had bought in good faith were wrapped in combustible materials or riddled with other life-critical defects. For many, private law remedies — claims in tort, contract, or under the Defective Premises Act (DPA) — were supposed to allocate responsibility to the developers, builders, manufacturers, and freeholders who created the problems, so that residents could regain safe homes and peace of mind. In practice, for thirty long years following the House of Lords decision in Murphy v Brentwood, and the failure of parliament to react to this the system, proved more adept at protecting the guilty and punishing the innocent. This was starkly illustrated and thrust into the public conscience by the Grenfell Tower fire.
The scale of the problems revealed by investigations post-Grenfell was truly mind-boggling. There is currently a debate going on in the media about the rights and wrongs of retrospective legislation and whether Reform should be prevented retrospectively (by a few months) from accepting large overseas donations. There is a considerable weight of opinion against retrospective legislation, but the scale of the building safety issues brushed all these principled arguments aside. The Building Safety Act 2022 dramatically increased the liabilities of builders and developers and similarly increased protections for homeowners and occupiers. Most importantly, it introduced retrospective liability going back 30 years. This is virtually unheard of. But how has it worked in practice? Not nearly as well as we should wish.
Nowhere has this been more vividly illustrated than in Wales, where a determined group of leaseholders known as the ‘Welsh Cladiators’ has spent years fighting for justice on behalf of thousands of affected residents.
Syniadau uchelgeisiol, awdurdodol a mentrus.
Ymunwch â ni i gyfrannu at wneud Cymru gwell.
From dream homes to nightmares
The Grenfell Tower fire of June 2017, which claimed 72 lives, forced a nationwide reckoning with building safety. It quickly became apparent that builders and developers, large and small, had been systematically ignoring building safety legislation for decades and that this applied across a much wider field than Grenfell itself exposed. In Wales, inspections revealed endemic defects in private apartment blocks, particularly in Cardiff Bay and Swansea waterfront developments built in the 2000s. Combustible cladding, missing or inadequate fire barriers, substandard insulation, and other construction failings turned once-desirable homes into sources of fear.
As a founding member and lead campaigner for the Welsh Cladiators, I purchased a flat in the Celestia development in Cardiff Bay in 2007 as part of my retirement plans. Like many others, I would later discover that the development was riddled with latent, life-critical fire and construction defects. Similar stories soon emerged from Victoria Wharf in Cardiff Bay, Altamar in Swansea, and other sites across Wales. Residents continue – 4 years after the BSA – to face costs for expensive 24/7 waking watches, soaring insurance premiums, unsellable properties, and the crushing knowledge that their homes might not protect them in a fire.
Welsh Cladiators described the action as a profound setback that forced innocent leaseholders to shoulder legal costs and uncertainty that their English counterparts were partly spared.
The human cost has been severe. Widespread mental-health struggles, financial distress, disrupted retirement plans, and a sense of being trapped are all too common. Some leaseholders abandoned their flats temporarily; others faced bankruptcy risks or were forced to sell at huge losses. We know of one victim being forced to sell her studio flat for £70k. The property was purchased in 2007 for £130k. In London the scandal has resulted in thousands of flats remaining unsold as buyers have evaporated. Frightened off by the crisis, associated escalating service charges and unlimited liabilities linked to the political uncertainty surrounding leasehold. It has been described as a ‘perfect storm.
Peter Larwood, a seven-year Cardiff Bay veteran of the Welsh Cladiators campaign, told the Senedd housing committee that victims had received ‘zero’ meaningful support while continuing to be ‘ripped off.’ The whole debacle has shifted from a fire-cladding crisis to a broader building-safety and now full-blown remediation crisis, with only six private-sector buildings fully fixed in the last nine years. Frustrated and fatigued by the lack of progress Rob Nichols, a long-standing Swansea campaigner, advised the Welsh Government that victims were increasingly moving from a ‘Legislate to Remediate’ position to a ‘Litigate to Remediate.
The Limits of private law and political response
In McBride’s terms, private law exists to restore the conditions of flourishing when they are damaged by wrongful acts or omissions. Some brave leaseholders turned to the tools available: claims against developers under the Defective Premises Act 1972 (given extended limitation periods after Grenfell), contractual arguments, and pressure on freeholders and managing agents.
Yet the fragmented nature of leasehold ownership in Wales and England has frequently left ordinary flat-owners bearing the immediate financial and emotional burden while those ultimately responsible continue to delay or dispute liability.
The Welsh Government’s approach diverged in important ways from England’s. Some provisions of the Building Safety Act 2022 were only applicable in England. These included some leaseholder cost protections. More importantly, they included new hybrid public/private law remedies, remediation orders, and contribution orders that enabled enforcement authorities to compel developers and landlords to act. These remedies were designed to be faster and cheaper than the standard private law remedies and to remove very considerable cost burdens from individual leaseholders. The Welsh government bizarrely rejected these new powers and remedies. Instead, it favoured voluntary ‘pacts’ and a collaborative approach with developers that focused primarily on narrowly defined ‘life-critical’ fire defects. Welsh campaigners argued these agreements were too limiting and left some residents with no option but to pursue broader compensation (for interim costs, distress, or hugely expensive non-fire defects) through costly and risky individual litigation.
Incredibly, in November 2022, and despite campaigners highlighting the issue, a cross-party attempt in the Senedd to introduce these provisions in Wales was defeated by the Welsh government. Welsh Cladiators described the action as a profound setback that forced innocent leaseholders to shoulder legal costs and uncertainty that their English counterparts were partly spared. Developers have continued to move slowly whilst managing agents and freeholders face continued accusations of inertia. Residents reported feeling ignored by politicians and underserved by the Welsh media, despite the proximity of many affected blocks to the Senedd itself.
Gofod i drafod, dadlau, ac ymchwilio.
Cefnogwch brif felin drafod annibynnol Cymru.
The campaign: persistence against the odds
The Welsh Cladiators—comprising residents from multiple developments, including figures such as myself, Peter Larwood, and Swansea’s Geoff Spight, Rob Nichols and Phil Lake, have refused to accept this as the final word. Over the last seven years we have organised protests at developer sites, the Senedd, and even Westminster. We have submitted detailed evidence to Senedd committees, written for publications including the Institute of Welsh Affairs, Nation Cymru, Bylines Cymru and the Welsh Housing Quarterly. Regretfully, we even protested outside the new BBC Wales HQ in Cardiff, but we have failed to capture the interest of their editors in stark contrast to the excellent work of many English BBC regions.
Residents affected by remediation works face major disruptions. With their homes fully scaffolded and wrapped in plastic they experience extensive construction works… For elderly and shift workers, conditions are especially difficult.
At Cardiff Bay’s Celestia development, after years of litigation, an agreement with Barratt Redrow (formerly Redrow) covering major fire-safety works, including replacement of timber cladding, was eventually reached. Work is currently being undertaken. Yet, this is only part of the picture. Even assuming this work is completed on schedule in 2029, this will leave leaseholders with tainted flats with considerably reduced values. Compensation claims for losses suffered along the way are unlikely to ever reach court, given the astronomic cost and risks.
It’s become increasingly clear, as one King’s Counsel advised, that leaseholder law treats the leaseholder appallingly. Today progress remains extremely patchy. Campaigners continue to press for stronger statutory powers so that leaseholders are not forced into David-versus-Goliath litigation. Our message is consistent: this crisis is not a technical housing issue alone but a matter of social justice and basic human security. Welsh Cladiators have consistently stated that they will keep going until justice is delivered, and people can feel safe in their homes – but this leaves out the financial loss issue.
Building safety is a far, far bigger financial scandal than ‘dieselgate’ or ‘credit cardgate’ and yet it is rarely, if ever spoken about as such. There is no class action grabbing the headlines, and the most significant recent court heard by the Supreme Court was between two large corporates, including Barrat Redrow.
A recent report by Burford Capital (Litigation funders) highlights that 67% of senior UK lawyers say strong legal claims are not being pursued and that the maths is dictating rather than the law. This is the situation leaseholders find themselves in. Commercial solicitors’ firms capable of pursuing large claims are not interested in pursuing claims for one-off clients (leaseholders) against potential long terms clients (big business, developers, builders) and are certainly not interested in pursuing such claims to trial because it does not fit their business model and does not produce a sufficient return on capital i.e. they can charge more, more often to big business with deeper pockets.
In March of this year, during the final period of the previous Welsh Labour administration, notable progress was made. This advancement is largely attributable to the dedicated efforts of former independent Senedd member Rhys ab Owen, who has long supported our cause. Through his political leadership, a cross-party consensus was achieved, and new legislation enacted finally made the same remedies available in Wales as in England—a significant milestone accomplished after four years of denial.
Currently, we are urging the new Plaid Cymru government to expedite the establishment of procedural regulations required to operationalise the new laws and ensure that victims have access to the Welsh courts. We also continue to lobby and encourage the new Welsh Government to pressure all developers to remediate at pace, and to guarantee that the financial responsibility for rectifying past shortcomings is placed on developers rather than residents. It has been comforting to hear the new Welsh Housing Minister, Sian Gwenllian say that the current lack of pace progress is ‘not acceptable.’ But what we need is action to back up those words.
Residents affected by remediation works face major disruptions. With their homes fully scaffolded and wrapped in plastic they experience extensive construction works. They daily endure restricted window openings, excessive heat, noise, and dust. For elderly and shift workers, conditions are especially difficult. The work takes years to complete, with delays common as more serious defects are uncovered during the remediation process. As winter approaches, concerns shift from excessive apartment heat to cold and damp.
Flourishing deferred
Nicholas McBride’s later writing on the building-safety crisis, including a chapter titled ‘Private Law in the Ruins,’ frames the Grenfell disaster and its aftermath as revealing deeper disorders in modern Western societies: systems that stop working, and a reluctance or inability to repair them effectively. The Welsh experience fits this diagnosis. Private law’s promise of restoring health, stability, and freedom from anxiety has been only partially fulfilled. Special legislation and political pressure have been required to fill the gaps, yet many residents remain in limbo years after the defects became known.
For thousands of Welsh leaseholders, justice delayed has already meant flourishing deferred.
Prof Sue Bright Susan (Sue) Bright, recently retired Emeritus Professor of Land Law at the University of Oxford (and McGregor Fellow of New College), has been a leading academic voice on the crisis, focusing especially on the experiences and legal position of leaseholders and residents. Her work has examined the crisis primarily from the perspective of those living in affected buildings. Like McBride she argues that private law (property/leasehold law, contract, and tort) has largely failed to deliver effective remedies or justice. She has argued that complex ownership structures, limited duties, service-charge rules, and practical barriers have all too often left leaseholders facing the costs, risks, and anxiety of unsafe homes while those responsible for the defects escaped timely accountability. Yet, it’s very noticeable how silent most senior practicing legal professionals are on the law’s response to this crisis.
Construction practitioners whether barristers or solicitors are used to representing big business – developers, builders and funders – and not the needs of large numbers of leaseholder owners or small time ‘mom and pop’ investors like the Cladiators, who have lost their shirts if not their homes. We would not be the first to observe that there appears to be no morality in law or 21st century law firms. Their motivation is profit and their pride is in profit share. Much credit should be given to McBride and Bright for at least trying to speak truth to power.
Welsh Cladiators clearly embody the human stakes of McBride’s abstract theory. Our campaign is not just about fire cladding, serious building defects or insurance premiums; it is about whether the law and the institutions that support it will enable ordinary people—teachers, health workers, retirees, self-employed workers, families—to reclaim the basic conditions of a flourishing life. Safe homes, the ability to move on, freedom from corrosive anxiety, and accountability for those who built and sold defective buildings are not luxuries. They are the practical meaning of the ‘humanity’ that private law, at its best, is meant to serve.
As remediation continues unevenly and new Welsh building-safety legislation evolves, our persistence serves as both indictment and hope. It indicts a system that allowed preventable risks to proliferate and then left victims to fight for remedies. It also demonstrates that determined citizens can still force attention onto injustices that might otherwise remain quietly unresolved. For thousands of Welsh leaseholders, justice delayed has already meant flourishing deferred. The remaining question is how quickly the law, Government, and industry will finally deliver the security that private law, in McBride’s vision, exists to protect.
All articles published on the welsh agenda are subject to IWA’s disclaimer. If you want to support our work tackling Wales’ key challenges, consider becoming a member.
