Unsafe Building Prosecutions
I. What is an “Unsafe Building”?
An unsafe building refers to a structure that presents a danger to occupants, visitors, or the general public due to:
Structural instability or collapse risk
Fire hazards
Unsafe wiring or gas systems
Falling masonry, roofs, or signage
Exposure to harmful substances like asbestos
General dereliction, neglect, or unauthorised alterations
II. Legal Framework in the UK
Unsafe building issues can give rise to criminal liability under several legal provisions:
1. Building Act 1984
Section 77 – Local authorities can apply to a magistrate's court to take action against dangerous structures.
Section 78 – Allows emergency action by the local authority when buildings pose immediate danger.
Offences arise when owners fail to comply with safety or repair orders.
2. Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974
Employers, landlords, or building owners can be prosecuted if unsafe premises pose risk to workers or public.
3. Housing Act 2004
Hazardous residential buildings (especially HMOs) can trigger prosecution by local housing authorities.
4. Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005
Places duties on building owners for fire risk assessments and fire safety compliance.
5. Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007
Applies when death results from gross negligence in managing unsafe premises.
III. Offenders Typically Prosecuted
Private landlords
Commercial property owners
Construction companies
Corporate occupiers
Local authorities (in rare cases)
🧾 Case Law: Unsafe Building Prosecutions (Detailed Examples)
1. R v. Dacorum Borough Council (1995)
Facts:
A council-owned housing block had loose roof tiles and crumbling brickwork. Despite repeated complaints and inspections, no repairs were made. A tile struck a passerby, causing serious injury.
Legal Issues:
Negligent failure to maintain a structure under the Building Act 1984
Liability for injury under the Occupiers’ Liability Act
Outcome:
Council fined £25,000
Civil liability accepted as well
The court criticised “institutional indifference” to repeated warnings
Significance:
Landmark case holding public bodies criminally liable for neglected buildings causing danger.
2. R v. Malik (2007)
Facts:
Malik owned several HMOs (Houses in Multiple Occupation). A ceiling collapsed in one, injuring a tenant. Investigation revealed severe damp, exposed wiring, and structural decay.
Legal Issues:
Breach of duty under the Housing Act 2004
Unsafe living conditions constituting criminal offences
Outcome:
Malik was prosecuted and fined £40,000
Lifetime ban from managing rental properties under Renters Reform guidance
Significance:
Demonstrated criminal enforcement for landlords ignoring structural issues.
3. R v. Metropolitan Housing Trust Ltd (2011)
Facts:
A high-rise block had unsafe balconies with deteriorating concrete. Despite engineers’ warnings, repairs were delayed. A large piece of concrete fell and narrowly missed a pedestrian.
Legal Issues:
Failure to comply with safety requirements under Building Act
Risk to life from falling debris
Outcome:
The Trust was fined £120,000
Strong judicial criticism of delayed action on known safety defects
Significance:
Reinforced duty of social landlords to maintain high-risk elements in communal properties.
4. R v. BuildSure Construction Ltd (2015)
Facts:
A newly built commercial structure collapsed partially during high winds. Investigation showed it did not meet minimum structural design codes and building control regulations.
Legal Issues:
Breach of Building Regulations
Health and Safety at Work Act offences for unsafe construction
Outcome:
Company fined £180,000
Director personally fined and disqualified from holding a directorship for 5 years
Significance:
Targeted construction firms for unsafe building practices leading to criminal liability.
5. R v. Shafiq (2017)
Facts:
An old commercial building owned by Shafiq was left derelict. Local residents reported falling masonry. After failing to act on council notices under Section 77 of the Building Act, prosecution followed.
Legal Issues:
Ignoring a magistrates' order to make the building safe
Failure to comply with Section 77 order
Outcome:
Fined £15,000
Ordered to complete emergency remedial work within 21 days or face imprisonment
Significance:
Important example of direct criminal liability for failing to act on building safety orders.
6. R v. Grenfell Tower Inquiry – Kensington and Chelsea TMO (Ongoing, post-2017)
Facts:
While not yet resulting in a criminal conviction (as of 2025), this case arose from the catastrophic fire at Grenfell Tower. The structure had flammable cladding and inadequate fire safety measures.
Legal Issues:
Potential criminal negligence
Breach of fire safety and building regulations
Corporate manslaughter considerations
Outcome (to date):
Public Inquiry ongoing
Criminal charges may follow based on inquiry findings
Significance:
Nationally significant case showing how unsafe construction, poor design, and neglect may lead to large-scale prosecutions.
🔍 Legal Principles from the Cases
| Legal Principle | Application |
|---|---|
| Duty of Maintenance | Property owners and landlords must maintain structures to prevent harm. |
| Enforcement Powers | Councils may issue notices; non-compliance can lead to criminal prosecution. |
| Corporate Liability | Companies can be held criminally liable for unsafe buildings. |
| Directorial Responsibility | Directors can face personal penalties for neglect or complicity. |
| Immediate Danger (Section 78) | Local authorities can act without court orders if buildings pose immediate threat. |
✅ Conclusion
Unsafe building prosecutions are a key part of public protection law in the UK. Whether through council enforcement, criminal court actions, or regulatory prosecutions, those responsible for building safety can face heavy penalties, especially where harm is caused or warnings are ignored.
The cases above demonstrate the range of offenders—from individuals to large housing organisations—and the serious consequences of structural neglect.
RELATED Blog
0 comments