Cladding campaigner gets MBE in New Year’s Honours List

Martin Shipton

Campaigners against defective cladding in Welsh apartment blocks have congratulated retired solicitor Gareth Wilson, who was made an MBE in the New Year’s Honours List for his work on the campaign.

Mr Wilson, who with his wife Sheila owned two flats in the Celestia complex in Cardiff Bay, has acted as an adviser to many fellow owners who found themselves in conflict with developers Barratt Redrow over serious structural faults affecting their homes.

Mark Thomas, lead campaigner for the Welsh Cladiators group, said: “Gareth thoroughly deserves this recognition. Without his help, there is no way that Celestia owners would have achieved a compensation agreement with Barratt Redrow.

“It’s been a long hard struggle, and Gareth has spent a huge amount of time working on the details of the case for no payment. He has also helped owners living in other complexes who are still trying to achieve a settlement.

“The fact that he has been awarded an honour is, we believe, total vindication of the campaign we fought.”

In April 2024 Barratt Redrow finally agreed to fund major repairs in the Celestia complex in Cardiff Bay following tests five years before that found faults including “very poor or non-existent” fire barriers between flats and cladding, and insulation that did not meet standards.

The tests took place in the wake of the Grenfell Tower disaster in London, where 72 people died in a 2017 fire that spread because of wholly inadequate insulation.

However, another element of the case has not had a successful outcome. Mr Wilson remains aggrieved that he, his wife and others in a similar position had not been compensated for the loss in the value of their properties.

Gareth and Sheila Wilson brought a test case against the building contractors responsible for the poor workmanship, saying the value of their two flats had depreciated in value and their ability to earn rent from letting them out had been diminished.

Losses

But in a High Court judgment released on May 30 2025, Judge Keyser KC ruled against the Wilsons, saying their losses had been notional rather than actual. He struck out most of their claims.

After the judgement was handed down, Mr Wilson released a statement that said: “We are shocked and very disappointed.

“Regardless of the strict legal position the decision reflects an immorality that is endemic in the industry. There is not the slightest indication that Barratt Redrow are ‘stepping up to the plate’ or doing anything other than to discourage claimants, scaring them away with their aggression and spending power.

“Far from doing anything that might be over and above their strict legal obligations, Barratt Redrow are doing their utmost to defeat leaseholder claims, using their £300m provision not to compensate leaseholders, but to wear them down.”

However, Mr Wilson pointed out that the result of another case that went to the Supreme Court was potentially beneficial to residents who were seeking compensation.

He said: “On May 21 2025 in URS Corporation Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd,, in which ironically Barratt Redrow were the successful party, a Supreme Court super panel gave a unanimous judgment confirming that the definition of those who could sue under the Defective Premises Act ‘would embrace a major property company which acquires the building as an investment or a bank which acquires an interest in a dwelling when lending on the security of a mortgage’.

“The extraordinary thing about this URS judgment is that it means Barratt Redrow and others like them will not even have to bear the cost of repairs and other damages arising from their defective developments. In many instances, including Celestia where Barratt Redrow is claiming a 100% indemnity from Laing O’Rourke [the building contractor], they will be able to claim indemnities from others.”

‘No authority’

In relation to his own case, Mr Wilson added: “The judge quotes no authority for the proposition that losses were not sustained by the Wilsons, because the flats were not sold. Nor do any of the cases referred to by the judge support the proposition. On the contrary, the cases are authority for the proposition that claimants need not have sold in order to claim diminution of value, nor (unlike the Wilsons) indicate any present or future intention to sell. This is no more than the application of ordinary principles of English law under which damages are claimed: you do not have to sell your car in order to claim damages from another driver who has crashed into it.”

The Wilsons were granted leave to appeal against the High Court judgment, but it was upheld later by the Court of Appeal.

The couple are currently out of the UK and were unavailable for comment.