(especially for n 6) In October 2025, UK Finance published guidance to its members on New Build Warranty. This suggests minimum acceptable conditions for the status of the warranty provider and for the scope and duration of cover, including accepting a minimum claim value, if reasonable. The provider is required to show processes ensuring that the initial build will comply with Building Regulations; there must also be a final inspection of each complete property to confirm its readiness for occupation by the borrower, who must also be protected by a consumer code, either from the developer or the warranty provider. The guidance appears just to summarise existing best practice; see further the update to section [7.4] below.

(especially for n 14) On the concrete block problem in Ireland, in 2025 the National Standards Authority of Ireland consulted on a draft of an updated edition of I.S. 465: Assessment, Testing and Categorisation of Damaged Buildings incorporating Concrete Blocks containing certain Deleterious Materials. In June 2025 the Government confirmed that some of its planned improvements to the remediation and compensation schemes would take effect retrospectively, with new legislation actively planned (not yet adopted by August 2026): Irish Legal News (5 June 2025).

(especially for n 21) Ireland: further insurance law changes are on the cards, under the Programme for Government 2025 - Securing Ireland’s Future. Following public consultation, in July 2025 the Irish Government revealed a new Action Plan for Insurance Reform, which intends over five years to strengthen consumer protection, improve the availability of insurance and encourage greater competition.

(especially for n 21) UK: for a rare example of a court challenge to an insurer under the Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012 (UK), see Cowie v Vitality Corporate Services Ltd [2025] CSOH 52 (Lord Sandison). The insurer could avoid liability under a life insurance policy by showing that the insured had misrepresented his medical situation, failing to take reasonable care in doing so; and that the insurer would not have entered into the policy, had it known the full facts. Because the misrepresentation was merely careless (not deliberate or reckless), under the 2012 Act the insurer had to return all the premiums paid (in fact already done). 

(especially for n 23) Peabody Trust v NHBC: the first-instance decision on the limitation point was upheld on appeal, but a ground not considered below also went in Peabody’s favour. In NHBC v Peabody Trust [2025] EWCA Civ 932, Coulson LJ said at [32]: 

There is no principle that prohibits the parties from agreeing that the relevant event is either the incurring by the insured of a liability to pay, or the actual expenditure of monies that the insured would otherwise not have had to have paid. 

On either test, the main part of Peabody’s claim was not out of time: the contractor’s insolvency, though the trigger for a claim, did not start time running.

(especially for the main text to n 30) Reaffirming Lord Hodge’s statement of the English courts’ approach to interpreting an insurance policy, as in the book, is the Supreme Court in Gatwick Investment Ltd v Liberty Mutual Insurance Europe SE [2026] UKSC 14 at [38]ff.

Building Control Services, the NHBC subsidiary, is also marketed – more simply – as NHBC Building Control. By the end of 2025 it had been active for 40 years; for many years the largest private sector building control body (E&W). It now has one competitor fewer after the disappearance of Assent Building Control: see the update above to section [3.5.1]. NHBC Building Control carries out over 800,000 building control inspections each year; under the BSA 2022 regime it is now a Registered Building Control Approver (RBCA), with 400 employees registered as inspectors with the BSR: see section [3.5.3] in the book.

(especially for n 40) ICW, a Belfast-based new home warranty provider with its own Consumer Code and building control service, argues for such integration:

By combining insurance, technical inspection and building control services within a single group structure, the business is able to maintain oversight across the full lifecycle of a development. This integrated approach allows issues to be identified early, resolved quickly and prevented from escalating – delivering value far beyond the traditional warranty model.

(especially for n 47) The NHBC published a new version of Buildmark, applicable to newly built and converted homes registered with NHBC from 1 April 2025. This appears to contain no significant differences from the 2024 version discussed in the book.

(especially for n 59) The success of only one of the three motor finance commission claims in the UK Supreme Court in Hopcraft v Close Brothers Ltd [2025] UKSC 33 means that no new attention has been directed to the comparable lack of transparency (and impact of discounts to developers) in the selling of third-party warranties to new homeowners, nor to possible non-compliance with the Consumer Duty, described in section [6.8] of the book. Developers and warranty providers would argue that the ongoing relationship between a developer registered with a warranty provider, organising warranties for all the houses or units in a development, keeps down the effective (though hidden) cost to each buyer by lowering individual transaction costs. However, it may also keep the scope and duration of cover more limited than consumers would like – as with the withdrawal post-Grenfell of fire safety defects from the main 10-year cover of new policies (the one-time Buildmark Section 4).

(especially for n 70) All three currently available NZ new home warranty products allow the benefit of the cover to be transferred to a new owner, for a fee and under conditions. It is not yet known whether this will be a feature of the cover imposed by law when the Building Amendment Bill (2026) is adopted.

(especially for n 72) On Peabody Trust v NHBC, see the update above to section [7.1.2]. 

In remedying non-compliant fire protection in multi-unit residential blocks, the scope of the ‘defect and damage’ provisions in Section 3 of Buildmark may be crucially unhelpful. Even before Grenfell Tower, and becoming even more significant after, flat owners in a development which had a fire in one block complained to FOS that the NHBC refused their claim for making compartmentation in their development comply with Building Regulations. In a sequence of many FOS Decisions from February 2017 about inadequate fire protection in blocks of flats – examples include DRN189960 and DRN2812182 – the Ombudsman backed the NHBC’s interpretation of the wording in the policy’s section 3 (unchanged in the current text):

The Buildmark definitions only include damage and this is defined as ‘Physical damage to the Home caused by a Defect’. This isn’t a particularly helpful definition, as it includes the word actually being defined. But I think it depends in large part on the definition of physical. And I think physical is actual identifiable damage. And this must be to the items listed in section 3. 

I’ve thought about the representatives’ argument that the faulty installation of fire compartmentation has caused actual physical damage. And while I think it can be argued it affects some of the common parts listed in section 3, I don’t think it’s actually physically damaged them. I appreciate the [owners’] representatives think that the parts are damaged, as without fire compartmentation they won’t function properly if there’s a fire. But for me this means they’re defective, it doesn’t mean they’re physically damaged. The representatives have also argued that the fire compartmentation itself is damaged, but I think it’s just not been properly installed and is lacking in certain areas, which for me means it’s defective but not damaged. 

The problems with the compartmentation may have impaired the value of the flats individually, but I don’t think this means there’s actual physical damage to the parts listed in section 3. I appreciate the representatives think this is about semantics. But for me it’s about a reasonable interpretation of the policy terms. I’ve thought about what the representatives have said about the dangers created by the issues with fire precautions and I appreciate the flat owners are in a very difficult position. But I don’t think that’s because of anything NHBC has done wrong. Buildmark provides cover for lots of things, which gives homeowners peace of mind. But it doesn’t provide cover for everything a builder does wrong.

For other FOS decisions concerning the NHBC and its Buildmark policy, see the update above to section [6.8.2].

As in the book’s Case Study 9 at section [10.6], when an insurer accepts a claim, the insured retains the theoretical right to take legal action against the wrongdoer responsible for creating the ‘insured risk’. To avoid ‘double recovery’, they can retain as damages only the difference between what the insurer has paid out and what the court assesses as the appropriate damages. This is often expressed as a term of the policy, requiring an insured to account to the insurer for any ‘recoveries’ from third parties relevant to the risks covered by the policy.

By contrast, Canada has a case-law ‘private insurance exception’. This permits the insured to sue the third party and recover twice, based on the idea that the wrongdoer should not benefit from the fact that the claimant has taken out and paid for insurance: see Faulkner v Duncan (City) 2017 BCSC 1403 (Thompson J) at [118]ff. Even in Canada, there are case-law and statutory limitations to this exception. 

If the insurer exercises its right of subrogation, the insured cannot separately take legal action against the same third party; but the insurer can retain as damages only the equivalent of the sum paid out under the policy (and its costs); the insured gets any difference; the policy booklet for Buildmark spells this out.

(especially for the main text to n 121) Recent new entrant to the new home warranty field (and more), Liverpool-based CIR, appears to be another example of an intermediary rather than provider, but in 2025 it became a registered user of the Consumer Code for New Homes (section [6.6.2] in the book), presumably requiring developers whose projects it insures also to subscribe to this Code.

On Checkmate (Table 7.1 A), see the update above to section [6.6.2]. In October 2025, LABC Warranty (also Table 7.1 A) published version 13 of its Technical Manual, as did Premier Guarantee version 17 of its Technical Manual; both came into force in January 2026.

Building on its advocacy of Insurance Backed Guarantees for home improvement projects, in July 2025 the National Home Improvement Council (UK) published Protecting What Matters: Financial Protection Mechanisms in Home Improvement. The report concludes that current protections are inconsistent, inadequately enforced and poorly understood by consumers – placing households at risk, particularly when contractors cease trading (often causing consumers to lose upfront deposits already paid) or work is substandard (no certainty of an easy route to redress). The report advocates reform across the sector, including defined minimum standards for workmanship and materials, limits on deposits (all protected by insurance), accessible ADR for disputes and all protections transferable with the home for a defined minimum period.

On government-supported reforms to the sector, including a new Approved Code, see the update above to section [6.5.4].

On the introduction in NZ of mandatory new home warranties, linked to proportionate liability in building cases, under the Building Amendment Bill 2026, see the update above to section [5.13.3]. The local context already includes a single commercial insurer: Stamford, an underwriting agent for Lloyd’s of London, offering Building Warranty Insurance for many years. This covers the cost of repairing defects in design, materials and workmanship; the builder or developer buys cover during the design or construction phase, then on satisfactory completion of the project transfers the policy to the individual homeowner. Stamford promotes its cover as better than offered by MBNZ or NZCBA, eg not excluding weathertightness (a frequent feature in NZ claims) or defective design. Stamford vets builders and the proposed building work; its rates (usually less than 1% of the cost of the project) are comparable to offerings from MBNZ or NZCBA.

In June 2026 the NZ Institute of Building Surveyors published its Comparative Analysis of Building Warranties in New Zealand, comparing the MBNZ and NZCBA products (discussed in the book) with the Stamford offering above. The report points out – correcting the suggestion in the book – that neither the Master Build 10-Year Guarantee nor the NZCBA’s Halo Residential Guarantee are insurance products, being self-insured by the offering body against its own reserves. If, as with the MBNZ product, the warranty offering is channelled through a wholly owned subsidiary private company, the figures for policy income and payout expenditure are not publicly available. 

By contrast, the Stamford product does attract NZ’s national regulation of insurance and is subject to the Fair Insurance Code. Another distinctive Stamford feature is that it does not offer cover for non-completion or loss of deposit – an optional add-on with both the other products: but see ‘Construction Crisis: Master Build Guarantee “Not Worth the Paper it’s Written On”’ Newsroom NZ (7 July 2022).

Like almost all UK insurance-backed warranties (NHBC etc), these products have a 2+8 structure. The MBNZ and NZCBA offer cover against workmanship and materials in the first two years after practical completion; then against structural defects and weathertightness only for the rest of the standard ten-year period. Stamford covers all defects for Years 1-2, and major defects for Years 3-10. Each product has its own definitions, exclusions and limitations, including financial limits on cover; the MBNZ and NZCBA products offer the new home buyer different levels of cover, reflected in the price.

The Building (Statutory Insurance Scheme) Regulations 2026 (Vic) came into operation on 1 July 2026. They are aimed at implementing the insurance reforms foreshadowed on p 441 (called the ‘First Resort Home Warranty Scheme’: reg 52). The reforms –largely in force from 1 July 2026 – are extensive and represent a significant overhaul of the existing Victorian scheme for new build and renovation of houses and apartment buildings up to three storeys (but, see exceptions in reg 9) as summarised in Tables 7.2 and 7.3. 

In terms of the key parameters in Table 7.2, the main changes are:

• minimum project value: increased from A$16,000 to A$20,000 (definition of ‘insurable domestic building contract’ inserted into the Building Act 1993 (Vic) s 3(1) by the Building Legislation Amendment (Buyer Protections) Act 2025 (Vic) (‘BP Act’) s 44)
• cover duration remains essentially the same reg 12)
• trigger: changed from ‘DDI’ to refer to ‘types of assistance available’ each with their own processes (pt 3)
• minimum cover (as noted in n 158, in practice the maximum aggregate liability): increased from A$300,000 to A$400,000 (reg 21) but with further sub-limits (regs pt 5)
• who offers: changed from VMIA to ‘Authority’ (in effect, the Building and Plumbing Commission: BP Act s 5)

For an early example of an NSW strata development (excluded from the state’s statutory HWI scheme) buying insurance cover against the developer’s liability for build quality, then finding that the timing of the developer’s insolvency (despite legislative intervention) left the Owners Corporation without cover, see The Owners – Strata Plan No 81376 v Dyldam Developments Pty Ltd [2025] NSWSC 438 in the update below to section [10.2.2].

(especially for the main text to n 223): NSW took a significant step towards introduction of a decennial liability scheme through the passage of amendments to the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW) – primarily, a definition of ‘relevant defect’ – via the passage of the Fair Trading and Building Legislation Amendment Act 2026 (NSW) on 14 August 2026; the amendments are to come into force on a date to be proclaimed. Likewise, Victoria now as the framework for a decennial liability scheme, via pt 2 div 3 of the Building Legislation and Treasury Legislation (Tax Relief) Amendment Act 2026 (Vic). 

(especially for the main text to n 263) An FOS Decision (DRN9876410 of 29 March 2016), refusing a new home buyers’ complaint against the NHBC, well illustrates the gap between owners’ expectations and the legal reality:

Mr and Mrs M have pointed out that NHBC’s website says that ‘Every home with an NHBC warranty has to be built in accordance with the NHBC Standards. Our inspectors visit NHBC registered developments at key stages during construction’. They say this amounts to a guarantee from NHBC that every home with NHBC cover will comply with NHBC standards. Even if this statement is taken in isolation, I don’t think this is the case. The statement that the home has to comply with NHBC standards – that is what is meant to happen – isn’t the same as a guarantee from NHBC that it will. And the statement can’t be read in isolation; it is part of a description of the Buildmark cover. The web site goes on to say ‘The builder is responsible for completing the home to NHBC Standards’. It then goes on to describe the nature of the guarantee that NHBC does provide for two years if the builder becomes insolvent or doesn’t comply with a court order or NHBC resolution report and the insurance cover in place for the next 3-10 years... I think it’s clear enough from the web site that NHBC was not guaranteeing compliance by the builder with NHBC standards. The policy booklet itself is even clearer.

The need to show consumer understanding of the key features of a product like a third-party warranty is an integral part of the Consumer Duty (UK), discussed at section [6.8] in the book, with updates above.