RugbyRebels

I read in the torygraph that they're introducing a law that is retrospective
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/0 ... rkmanship/

I kinda get why this law is important, but I feel very uneasy with any law put on the statute that is retrospective/retroactive. It sets a precedent that I would rather wasn't set.

Behind a paywall, so not getting to retrospective application.
I'd agree with extending it beyond the current 7(?) years; not sure that 15 is right either - quite honestly, I'm not sure there should be any limit - just allowing that the longer the time frame, the harder to prove

I absolutely agree that no law should ever have retrospective application. Spot a cock-up and change it; but don't criminalise anyone for breaking a law that didn't exist at the time - pretty fundamental principal TBH.

Depends what's meant by retrospective. if the builders are being judged by updated building standards that weren't in place that's not acceptable, if we're just talking about a period of time to identify flaws with what would've building standards of the time than I wouldn't conflate that with changing the law to take retrospective action, if anything I might wonder why you'd only get 15 years

Digby wrote:Depends what's meant by retrospective. if the builders are being judged by updated building standards that weren't in place that's not acceptable, if we're just talking about a period of time to identify flaws with what would've building standards of the time than I wouldn't conflate that with changing the law to take retrospective action, if anything I might wonder why you'd only get 15 years

Just seen a story on the BBC that I think this relates to. It doesn’t seem to suggest that there are any changes to the standards that are being imposed retrospectively, just that the periods in which home ownership can take action has been extended.. 15 years is fair enough for major structural issues in my opinion. 25 years would still be acceptable. Six years was always too short for big issues.

Definitely wouldnt class this as a retrospective change of a law though.

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:Depends what's meant by retrospective. if the builders are being judged by updated building standards that weren't in place that's not acceptable, if we're just talking about a period of time to identify flaws with what would've building standards of the time than I wouldn't conflate that with changing the law to take retrospective action, if anything I might wonder why you'd only get 15 years

Just seen a story on the BBC that I think this relates to. It doesn’t seem to suggest that there are any changes to the standards that are being imposed retrospectively, just that the periods in which home ownership can take action has been extended.. 15 years is fair enough for major structural issues in my opinion. 25 years would still be acceptable. Six years was always too short for big issues.

Definitely wouldnt class this as a retrospective change of a law though.

We are taking the extremely unusual step of legislating retrospectively to give new and existing homeowners 15 years in which to bring claims against builders and developers for shoddy workmanship when the building was constructed.

-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, Mr Robert Jenrick

Always fun to see posters who think they know better than the politicians actually writing and introducing the laws in question.

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:Depends what's meant by retrospective. if the builders are being judged by updated building standards that weren't in place that's not acceptable, if we're just talking about a period of time to identify flaws with what would've building standards of the time than I wouldn't conflate that with changing the law to take retrospective action, if anything I might wonder why you'd only get 15 years

Just seen a story on the BBC that I think this relates to. It doesn’t seem to suggest that there are any changes to the standards that are being imposed retrospectively, just that the periods in which home ownership can take action has been extended.. 15 years is fair enough for major structural issues in my opinion. 25 years would still be acceptable. Six years was always too short for big issues.

Definitely wouldnt class this as a retrospective change of a law though.

We are taking the extremely unusual step of legislating retrospectively to give new and existing homeowners 15 years in which to bring claims against builders and developers for shoddy workmanship when the building was constructed.

-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, Mr Robert Jenrick

Always fun to see posters who think they know better than the politicians actually writing and introducing the laws in question.

Always fun to see posters believing everything that comes out of a politician’s mouth and being naive enough to think that politicians truly and fully understand all legislation they introduce.
Always fun to see posters believe that politicians actually write the legislation.
Always fun to see a poster get his high horse about respectful and reasoned debate on one thread and then plummet off that high horse on another.
Have a read of ‘Why We Get The Wrong Politicians’.
Anyway back to my self imposed exile from here.

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:Depends what's meant by retrospective. if the builders are being judged by updated building standards that weren't in place that's not acceptable, if we're just talking about a period of time to identify flaws with what would've building standards of the time than I wouldn't conflate that with changing the law to take retrospective action, if anything I might wonder why you'd only get 15 years

Just seen a story on the BBC that I think this relates to. It doesn’t seem to suggest that there are any changes to the standards that are being imposed retrospectively, just that the periods in which home ownership can take action has been extended.. 15 years is fair enough for major structural issues in my opinion. 25 years would still be acceptable. Six years was always too short for big issues.

Definitely wouldnt class this as a retrospective change of a law though.

Quite, unless a house is only supposed to last 15 years it does seem overly protective of house builders. Mind the absurd protections for house builders whilst not getting enough houses built whilst constructing long term energy, environmental and societal problems is where it's at

I suppose it is possible this is retrospective law that Jenrick is talking about, and in theory it is something he should know about, mind, so are housing and ministerial standards. It's just not the same as I'd assume was meant by allowing retrospective action, I'd assume that was allowing someone to be pursued for doing something that wasn't contrary the regulations when they did it, and I'd further assume everyone else would've been meaning that too.

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:Depends what's meant by retrospective. if the builders are being judged by updated building standards that weren't in place that's not acceptable, if we're just talking about a period of time to identify flaws with what would've building standards of the time than I wouldn't conflate that with changing the law to take retrospective action, if anything I might wonder why you'd only get 15 years

Just seen a story on the BBC that I think this relates to. It doesn’t seem to suggest that there are any changes to the standards that are being imposed retrospectively, just that the periods in which home ownership can take action has been extended.. 15 years is fair enough for major structural issues in my opinion. 25 years would still be acceptable. Six years was always too short for big issues.

Definitely wouldnt class this as a retrospective change of a law though.

We are taking the extremely unusual step of legislating retrospectively to give new and existing homeowners 15 years in which to bring claims against builders and developers for shoddy workmanship when the building was constructed.

-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, Mr Robert Jenrick

Always fun to see posters who think they know better than the politicians actually writing and introducing the laws in question.

You credit Jenrick with any intelligence?

It’s not a retrospective change in the standards. Just an increase in timeframe. I like how you’re trying to make this out to be akin to tearing up the Magna Carta but it really isn’t.

The definition of a retrospective law

Definition
The Oxford Dictionary of Law defines retrospective or retroactive legislation as “legislation that operates on matters taking place before its enactment, e.g. by penalising conduct that was lawful when it occurred. “ It goes on to say that “there is a presumption that statutes are not intended to have retroactive effect unless they merely change legal procedure.”

What Jenrick is suggesting is more of an amendment, it’s not making unlawful something that was previously legal.

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: Just seen a story on the BBC that I think this relates to. It doesn’t seem to suggest that there are any changes to the standards that are being imposed retrospectively, just that the periods in which home ownership can take action has been extended.. 15 years is fair enough for major structural issues in my opinion. 25 years would still be acceptable. Six years was always too short for big issues.

Definitely wouldnt class this as a retrospective change of a law though.

We are taking the extremely unusual step of legislating retrospectively to give new and existing homeowners 15 years in which to bring claims against builders and developers for shoddy workmanship when the building was constructed.

-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, Mr Robert Jenrick

Always fun to see posters who think they know better than the politicians actually writing and introducing the laws in question.

You credit Jenrick with any intelligence?

It’s not a retrospective change in the standards. Just an increase in timeframe. I like how you’re trying to make this out to be akin to tearing up the Magna Carta but it really isn’t.

Never said it was. I indicated that I could see that this law might be needed. I just don't like the precedent it sets. I don't agree that my 'unease' means that I'm making out that they're ripping up the constitution. But if you want to twist what I said to such a ridiculous extent go right ahead, but you just look foolish. Just like you do when you start arguing against the minister's own description of it as retrospective.

lawyer here. Changing of an enforcement period is not retrospective legislation, whatever Jenrick says. Politicians are spectacularly bad at law - even most of the ones who are lawyers - when they are trying to get it right. For this lot you could argue that this is part of a softening up process for when they actually want to legislate retrospectively.

What about parliament "correcting" decisions made by courts that goes against parliament's wishes?
https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-echr ... eme-court/

Which Tyler wrote:What about parliament "correcting" decisions made by courts that goes against parliament's wishes?
https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-echr ... eme-court/

That's not retrospective legislation either. Just a failure to understand our legal framework or the rule of law. Nothing serious for the Lord Chancellor...

It is intended to deal with cladding claims following Grenfell. The current contractual limit is 6 years. There are swathes of high rises built earlier this century where the tenants have no contractual remedy for construction which (allegedly) did not meet building regulations standards at the time so far as they related to fire suppression. So the leaseholders are having to pay thousands upon thousands to rectify (subject to any funding available from central govt which is largely restricted to buildings over 18m high).
It is true that limitation in tort can be extended to up to 15 years. It is a quirk of tortious liability that a party cannot be held liable for what is called pure economic loss and that includes the costs of remedying defective workmanship.
So basically it is a policy decision to extend the CONTRACTUAL liability period to the same 15 years. By the time it comes in it will still miss all those high rises built in 2007/8.
I agree, extending a limitation period relating to standards that applied at the time of construction is not retrospective. It is not designed to impose, and will not impose, any higher standards than those that existed at the time of practical completion. It is just the case that Grenfell highlighted an issue which had not properly been considered before.