The Board has considered the risks and rewards of pursuing legal claims against contractors and / or consultants and / or insurers where the installation or materials used are considered not to have been compliant with Building Regulations or contractual specifications.  This decision takes account of the outcomes of the following cases:

• Martlet Homes Limited v Mulalley & Co. Limited, in which the contractor was found to be liable for the full cost of replacing the external wall installation. This was because it had not, as specified in the contract, conformed with guidance from the Building Research Establishment, which advised that cladding should not be used on high-rise buildings unless it had specifically been tested in accordance with BS8414-1. Where ACM cladding is being replaced, a claim has been submitted to the government for any costs not covered by these actions.
• URS Corporation Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd, which found that developers can pursue third-party contractors for the cost of building safety remediation work
• A successful case pursued by residents of the Exchange development in Bermondsey against Notting Hill Genesis and United Living for costs “related to having to live in unsafe homes and the inconvenience caused by the building works”
• Triathlon Homes LLP v Stratford Village Development Partnership, which required the owner of the Olympic Park to reimburse the government's Building Safety Fund for the costs of fire safety remediation, including those relating to the affordable housing units owned by Triathlon Homes.

Where it is minded to proceed, the Board obtains independent advice on the chances of success and sets firm limits on the exposure  to legal fees at risk.