The Accountability Gap | How 109 homeowners spent ten years trying to discover who was responsible

We bought brand-new homes.We expected the occasional snagging issue.We expected a few repairs.We never expected to spend the next decade trying to discover who was actually responsible for putting things right.Today our estate has involved developers, insurers, building control, local authorities, the Building Safety Regulator, the Financial Ombudsman Service, the Information Commissioner's Office, Trading Standards, the High Court and multiple police forces.Yet one question remains surprisingly difficult to answer. Who is actually accountable?

It started with what many people would call "snagging"

Kaleidoscope is a 109-home development in Dunstable built by Linden Homes (now Vistry Group).

Like many new-build homeowners, residents initially reported what appeared to be ordinary defects.

But as months became years, it became clear these were not isolated snagging items.

Residents repeatedly reported:

• persistent water ingress

• drainage problems

• roof defects

• damp and mould

• defects affecting balconies

• defects affecting communal areas

• missing construction information

• missing handover documentation

Some issues affected houses.

Others affected the apartment blocks.

Many affected both.

Ten years later many of those issues still exist

That is perhaps the most extraordinary part of the story.

Many of the properties reporting water ingress today are the very same properties that reported water ingress years ago.

The defects have not simply appeared after warranty expiry.

They have been repeatedly reported throughout the warranty period.

Yet many remain unresolved.

That raises an obvious question.

If defects are repeatedly reported during the warranty period, but never permanently remedied, what happens when the warranty expires?

When maintenance isn't actually maintenance

One misunderstanding has arisen repeatedly throughout our journey.

Residents are often told that defects are "maintenance."

Sometimes they are.

But latent construction defects are different.

Replacing a worn door closer is maintenance.

Cleaning gutters is maintenance.

Painting communal hallways is maintenance.

However, if water is entering a building because of the way it was designed or constructed, that is not routine maintenance.

If rodents are entering through unsealed cavities or service penetrations created during construction, that is not routine maintenance.

If years of water ingress have damaged the building fabric itself, that is not routine maintenance.

Those are construction issues.

Understanding that distinction has become central to everything that has followed.

The evidence kept growing

Over the years residents accumulated more and more evidence.

Water ingress.

Damp.

Black mould.

Roof leaks.

Drainage failures.

Missing documentation.

Then something happened that changed the conversation.

Residents in both apartment blocks began reporting rats entering occupied homes.

The immediate question was not simply how to remove the rodents.

It was:

How are they getting into brand-new residential buildings in the first place?

Photographs appeared to show unsealed service penetrations, openings around pipework, cavities and air bricks.

Some of the protective grilles installed over plastic air bricks had themselves apparently been chewed through.

Pest control can remove rodents.

It cannot redesign buildings.

When damp becomes something much bigger

Two ground-floor flats in one apartment block had previously been vacated for many months because of severe damp and black mould.

Those circumstances were known to the developer, NHBC and the local authority.

Even today, damp remains visible within communal corridors.

That raises another important question.

Was the mould itself the problem?

Or was it simply a symptom of an underlying construction defect that still exists?

Because if the underlying cause remains unresolved, the same conditions may simply return.

Then came the paperwork...

Or rather...

The absence of it.

As Directors of the Residents' Management Company we expected to receive the information needed to manage the development.

Instead we discovered significant documentation appeared to be missing.

This included requests for:

• as-built drawings

• Operation and Maintenance manuals

• roof void information

• inspection records

• handover documentation

• information explaining how parts of the buildings were intended to be inspected and maintained.

Without those records it becomes extraordinarily difficult to investigate defects properly.

You cannot easily inspect spaces you cannot locate.

You cannot maintain systems you do not fully understand.

Following the responsibility trail

Like most residents, we assumed there would be a clear route for resolving these issues.

Instead we found ourselves moving between organisation after organisation.

The developer.

The warranty provider.

The local authority.

Building Control.

The Building Safety Regulator.

Government departments.

Professional bodies.

Each had part of the picture.

None appeared able to resolve all of it.

The question nobody seems able to answer

Perhaps the most surprising discovery came during correspondence with public bodies.

The Building Safety Regulator confirmed it cannot investigate the conduct of Approved Inspectors before April 2024 because Parliament has not given it retrospective powers.

Central Bedfordshire Council has consistently maintained that, because NHBC acted as the Approved Inspector, it has no enforcement role in relation to those historic Building Control functions.

Other organisations have similarly explained the limits of their own powers.

Each explanation may be legally correct.

But together they expose a much larger question.

Who investigates historic failures by Approved Inspectors if no organisation now has the legal power to do so?

That question is no longer simply about Kaleidoscope.

It is a question that could affect thousands of homeowners across England.

The system isn't designed for ten-year disputes

When homes are built, everyone expects defects to be identified quickly.

The regulatory system assumes problems will be found, investigated and resolved within relatively short timescales.

But what happens when defects continue throughout an entire warranty period?

What happens when the same properties report the same issues year after year?

What happens when residents only gradually discover that apparently separate defects may all be connected?

Those questions appear to have few clear answers.

Why the Financial Ombudsman is now involved

The Financial Ombudsman Service is currently considering complaints concerning NHBC's handling of the Buildmark warranty.

One of the central issues is whether long-standing defects that were repeatedly reported throughout the warranty period should have resulted in broader investigations into the condition of the buildings.

That investigation continues.

Why the High Court is now involved

Separately, governance issues affecting the Residents' Management Company are now before the High Court.

Those proceedings are not about construction defects themselves.

They concern the governance of the company responsible for managing the estate, including issues surrounding directors, company administration and service charge monies held on trust.

Although separate, they illustrate how unresolved building problems can eventually extend far beyond bricks and mortar.

This isn't the story we wanted to tell

Nobody buys a new home hoping to spend the next decade writing to regulators.

Nobody wants to become familiar with building legislation.

Nobody wants to learn how Building Control, warranties and regulatory oversight interact.

Residents simply wanted safe homes and clear answers.

The bigger question

Throughout this journey, one thought has stayed with me.

If this can happen on one development...

Could it happen elsewhere?

Across England there are thousands of privately managed new-build estates.

Many residents may never need to ask who is responsible.

But if serious defects emerge years later, they may find themselves asking exactly the same question we have.

Not because nobody cares.

But because responsibility has become so fragmented that no single organisation appears able—or willing—to deal with the whole picture.

We are still hopeful

Despite everything, this story has not yet reached its conclusion.

Vistry's Chief Executive has committed to personally reviewing the matters we have raised.

The Financial Ombudsman continues to consider our complaint.

The High Court will determine governance issues.

Further requests for information are being pursued with Government.

Our hope has never been to create conflict or publicity.

It has always been much simpler than that.

To understand what happened.

To ensure responsibility is accepted where appropriate.

And to help make sure that future homeowners do not spend ten years asking a question that should have a straightforward answer:

Who is responsible?