28/09/2026
Stop Regulating the Professional Builder to Control the Cowboy
If the UK Government genuinely wants to protect homeowners when hiring builders, perhaps we are concentrating on the wrong problem.
I recognise the Government's intention to provide greater protection for people hiring builders. Any initiative that genuinely protects both the builder and consumer deserves consideration.
However, I don't believe the Government fully understands the scale or complexity of the trust issues within domestic building.
We need to ask whether imposing a trust payment system across the entire industry actually addresses the roots of the problem.
Why penalise the professional?
Professional builders already have mechanisms available to protect both parties. Many reputable domestic builders will not undertake significant building work without a proper written contract, such as a JCT Home Owner Contract.
A properly administered contract establishes the agreed scope of work, contract price, payment arrangements, variations, responsibilities of the parties and procedures for dealing with disagreements.
The customer knows what they are paying for and when payment becomes due. The builder knows when they are entitled to payment for work properly undertaken. That raises an obvious question.
Why impose an additional trust payment mechanism on the professional builder in an attempt to control the behaviour of people who are not operating professionally in the first place?
We should be extremely careful about designing regulation around the worst operators in the industry and then imposing the consequences on everybody else.
We also need to recognise that bad behaviour is not confined to builders. Builders encounter customers who withhold legitimate payments, manufacture disputes, change the scope of work without accepting the additional cost, or simply refuse to pay for properly completed work.
Consumer protection must work both ways. In my opinion, using a JCT Home Owner Contract provides fair protection for both parties.
Qualify the builder before comparing the price. We need to fundamentally change the way consumers are taught to appoint builders. For decades homeowners have been advised obtain three quotations. I believe that puts the emphasis in completely the wrong place.
Do not get three quotes and choose a builder. Qualify three builders and then compare their quotes.
Before comparing prices, consumers should establish whether the people providing those prices are technically qualified, financially credible, appropriately insured, and capable of delivering the work. Price is easy to understand.
Competence is much more difficult for a layperson to assess. The cheapest quotation can appear to offer the best value when the price may actually be lower because work has been omitted, the project has been misunderstood, appropriate insurance is absent, legitimate business overheads have not been included, or the person simply does not possess the technical qualification or competence necessary to price and undertake the work correctly.
At the extreme end of the market there are very different risks. There is the cowboy, someone presenting themselves as a builder without the technical qualification or competence to undertake the work properly.
There is the rogue, someone whose intention is to obtain the customer's money rather than properly fulfil the building works.
There is the chancer, someone prepared to undertake work without appropriate insurance.
Then there is the professional builder, properly qualified and experienced, appropriately insured, operating under a proper building contract, pricing the complete scope of work and making proper provision for overheads, risk and contractual responsibilities.
The professional may therefore not provide the cheapest quotation.
Membership, vetting, and assessment are not technical qualifications.
One of my greatest concerns is the prominence given to trade organisations and online directories as evidence of a builder's technical competence.
Membership is not a qualification. Vetting is not a qualification. An online skills assessment is not a qualification.
A recognised building trade or higher technical qualification is independently awarded evidence that someone has invested the time and demonstrated the ability required to achieve a defined technical standard.
Yet some of the best-known organisations and services promoted to consumers as ways of finding reputable builders do not make possession of such a qualification a universal requirement for someone undertaking general building work.
That includes the Federation of Master Builders, Checkatrade and MyBuilder. The Federation of Master Builders does not make possession of a recognised trade or technical qualification a universal condition of membership.
That raises a simple question, how can someone with no trade or technical qualification be described as a Master Builder?
Checkatrade states that where a trade does not require formal qualifications it may assess experience, training, or previous work history instead.
MyBuilder states that tradespeople may provide certification for regulated work or undergo an assessment of their expertise through an online skills check.
Then there is TrustMark, the Government Endorsed Quality Scheme. TrustMark has requirements around competence and operates through approved Scheme Providers. That is more substantial than simply being listed on a commercial directory.
However, demonstrating competence within such a scheme should not be confused with a universal requirement that every general builder personally holds a recognised building trade or higher technical qualification. These organisations and schemes may undertake checks. My criticism is not that they undertake no vetting.
It is that vetting and technical qualification are fundamentally different things. A consumer seeing terms such as "approved", "checked", "vetted", "member" or "registered" can understandably believe that the builder's technical qualifications have been independently verified.
They may not have been, and that should never be assumed.
There are thousands of genuine professionals throughout our industry who have spent years acquiring recognised trade and technical qualifications. They have invested in their education, developed their skills and proved their technical competence.
Why should those professionals need to pay a trade organisation or commercial directory for a badge to demonstrate credibility, particularly where membership of that organisation does not universally require the same technical qualifications, they spent years acquiring?
Indeed, I would argue that this is precisely why some qualified professional builders choose not to join such organisations. If the same badge can be displayed by someone without an equivalent recognised trade or higher technical qualification, what does that badge actually tell the consumer about technical competence?
A properly qualified professional builder should therefore never be dismissed simply because they are not a paying member of a trade organisation or commercial directory.
Insurance needs greater attention
There is similar confusion surrounding insurance. A builder may tell a customer they are "fully insured", but what does that actually mean? Businesses employing staff will generally be required to carry Employers' Liability Insurance under the Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969, subject to the applicable exemptions.
However, builders are not generally legally required simply because they operate a building business to carry Public Liability Insurance or Contract Works Insurance.
I believe that has to change. For substantial domestic building work (works above £20,000 excluding VAT), appropriate Public Liability and Contract Works Insurance should form the minimum standard expected of a professional builder.
What is Contract Works Insurance?
Contract Works Insurance covers physical loss of or damage to building works while they are being carried out, generally from commencement until completion or handover. Its fundamental purpose is to protect the value of the work, materials and components forming part of the contract works if they are accidentally damaged or destroyed before completion.
Contract Works Insurance commonly covers insured contract works against accidental physical loss or damage arising from events such as fire, flood, storm, theft, vandalism, accidental damage and collapse.
This is important protection. Imagine a substantial extension or refurbishment approaching completion and suffering a serious fire, flood or collapse. Without appropriate Contract Works Insurance, the financial consequences for the builder and, more importantly, the homeowner could be enormous.
Contract Works Insurance is not an insignificant business expense. For a small builder, the annual premium can typically be in the region of £3,000 to £5,000.
The professional builder who pays thousands of pounds each year to insure their work properly can therefore appear more expensive than somebody who does not carry the same level of cover.
And this brings us straight back to the cowboy and the chancer. Contract Works Insurance is not compulsory, which means the professional builder chooses to incur this substantial cost to protect both their business and the customer's project. The cowboy and rogue may not understand the need for that protection. The chancer, by definition, is prepared to take the risk of operating without it.
Yet all three can currently present themselves to the homeowner as a "builder".
VAT creates another misleading price comparison
There is another basic question I would encourage consumers to ask:
Is the builder VAT registered? The current VAT registration threshold is £90,000 taxable turnover. (September 2026). In today's market, I personally would not consider someone operating below that level of turnover to be a professional builder capable of undertaking significant domestic building projects without asking some serious questions about the scale and nature of their business.
I know from 25 years of estimating data that, on a typical domestic extension, approximately 55% of the cost is materials and 45% is labour. Put the £90,000 VAT threshold into that context. A professional builder undertaking substantial domestic building projects, purchasing significant quantities of materials and employing staff can reach £90,000 of taxable turnover remarkably quickly.
So, ask a very serious question, if my builder has employees and regularly undertakes substantial domestic building projects, why isn't the business VAT registered?
That does not automatically mean anything is wrong. A business can legitimately operate below the VAT threshold and businesses below the threshold can also register voluntarily. But it is a perfectly reasonable question for a homeowner to ask.
VAT registration does not prove that somebody is technically qualified or competent. But for substantial building work, the absence of VAT registration should form an important part of the consumer's due diligence. It is also an area in which rogues can flourish, particularly where customers are encouraged to pay cash specifically to conceal turnover and avoid VAT that should properly be accounted.
There is also a major distortion when consumers simply compare quotations. The professional VAT registered builder will add 20% VAT to standard rated building work. A trader legitimately operating below the VAT threshold does not. That means the professional can appear significantly more expensive before we have considered the cost of qualified staff, insurance, proper supervision, health and safety and the overheads involved in operating a professional building business.
The homeowner sees two prices. What they may not see are two completely different businesses sitting behind those prices.
Why are we considering regulating the professional to control the cowboys, rogues and chancers? This is ultimately where I question the emphasis on trust payments.
If the Government wants to improve standards in domestic building, the answer cannot simply be to place another financial mechanism around every transaction.
We should instead be asking why someone can present themselves to the public as a builder while possessing no relevant technical qualification, carrying no Public Liability or Contract Works Insurance, undertaking substantial work without a recognised building contract, and still competing directly against a professional builder who has invested in all of those fundamentals. Yet we continue placing these businesses side by side as though they were equivalent. They are not.
The emphasis should move from regulating the payment to qualifying the person receiving it.
How would I fix it?
The real failure in our industry is the lack of meaningful barriers distinguishing a professional builder from someone who simply calls themselves a builder.
The domestic building sector desperately needs a Government Register of Builders suitable to undertake domestic building projects.
The principle could be remarkably simple.
To become a Registered Builder, an individual or business should have to demonstrate four fundamentals.
1. Qualification
The builder, or the appropriately responsible person within the building company, should hold a recognised building trade qualification or an HND or equivalent higher technical qualification in a building profession. Membership of a trade organisation should not satisfy this requirement and should be disregarded. The qualification itself should be verifiable by Government.
2. Insurance
The business should maintain Employers' Liability Insurance where legally required, together with Public Liability Insurance and Contract Works Insurance. Evidence of current cover should be verifiable by Government, and maintaining that cover should be a condition of remaining on the register.
3. Contract
For domestic building projects above a defined value, I would suggest £20,000 excluding VAT, a Registered Builder should be required to undertake the work under a written building contract, such as the JCT Home Owner Contract.
A contract provides both parties with clarity over the scope of work, contract price, payments, variations, responsibilities and procedures for resolving disagreements.
4. VAT Registration
All professional builders should be VAT registered. I also believe Government Registered Builders should be permitted to charge VAT at a reduced rate for example, half the standard rate at 10%. This would provide a tangible financial advantage to homeowners who choose a properly qualified, insured and registered professional builder, while reducing the price advantage currently enjoyed by operators working outside those professional standards.
It really could be that simple:
The Government Register should not become another commercial trade organisation, membership scheme or subscription badge.
It should be a Government administered Register establishing a minimum professional standard for people undertaking substantial domestic building projects.
Make due diligence simple for the consumer
At present we expect the average homeowner, who may undertake significant building work only once or twice in their lifetime, to determine whether a builder is technically competent, properly insured and operating professionally.
Are we really expecting ordinary homeowners to understand building qualifications, interpret insurance policies and establish whether the cover is adequate for their particular project? They should not have to. Government should verify those things once.
The consumer could then visit a Government website, search the builder's name and establish whether that builder meets the required standards. Their own due diligence then becomes remarkably simple:
Check the Government Register. Speak to previous customers. Inspect previous work. Then compare quotations from Registered Builders.
I implore the Government not to penalise the professional in an attempt to regulate the unprofessional.
My advice to homeowners
I have worked in the building industry since 1978, starting as an apprentice carpenter and joiner, progressing to become a builder and, for the last 26 years, running Estimators Online. I hear horror stories from homeowners and builders every day.
If I could give a homeowner one immediate piece of advice, it would be this:
Ask your builder if they carry Contract Works Insurance and ask to see evidence of their current policy. A professional builder carrying this cover will know immediately what you are asking for.
SERIOUS WARNING
If your builder does not carry Contract Works Insurance, do not hire them, irrespective of how attractive their quotation may be, it could become the most expensive building project of your life.
