Sarah Hall
Main Page: Sarah Hall (Labour (Co-op) - Warrington South)Department Debates - View all Sarah Hall's debates with the Department for Business and Trade
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furness.
I am grateful to colleagues for securing a debate on this issue, because it is something that I am hearing more and more about in Warrington South. When people come to see me about it, they are usually exhausted and upset. Their home is supposed to be the safest place in their life, but instead they are living in chaos. Indeed, this is such a widespread problem that there are now entire TV programmes about cowboy builders, and newspapers and broadcasters regularly produce guides about how to spot and avoid them.
One constituent came to me after doing everything that a sensible person would do. They found a firm on Checkatrade, read the reviews, checked the company’s details and were confident they had found a reputable business. They were not naive; they were careful and did their due diligence. However, once the work started, their home was devastated. The whole roof came off. Rooms that they relied on day to day, including the shower, were in a horrendous state for months. They ended up spending around £60,000 to put things right.
Trading standards officers were helpful and saw the case through the legal process. Eventually, the rogue builders received a suspended sentence for what they had done to three different families. But even then, the system did not come close to putting things right. The company had claimed to have insurance, but it did not. Under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, the judge had to set a limit of £50,000 to be split between all three victims. My constituent will only get back a fraction of what they lost, and frustratingly they still have not received the compensation they are owed. When we talk about consumer protection, we must be honest—it simply did not work for my constituent.
Members from across the House have described similar patterns of behaviour in their own constituencies. When the same individuals take thousands of pounds, leave homes unsafe and move straight on to the next victim, it looks and feels like fraud, yet too many people are still being told that it is a civil matter. If we are serious about protecting consumers, we need clearer lines, so that the police understand when this issue becomes criminal and not just contractual. We need enforcement agencies with the resources to intervene earlier, and we should take a proper look at whether an affordable and proportionate licensing or accreditation scheme for builders would help to stop repeat offenders from slipping through the net. Most of all, we need a system that recognises what is at stake. Rogue builders are ruining homes across the country, yet victims are still being left to fend for themselves.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will look closely at the gaps that this case has exposed in enforcement, compensation and basic protection, so that what happened in Warrington South does not keep happening to families across the country.