UK Construction and Law
Builder prosecuted after an extension was raised over live gas pipework and a boiler flue, then ignored an improvement notice
By Staff Writer | 18 August 2026
A Bradford contractor built a rear extension over the gas service pipe and around a boiler flue that was left discharging inside the new room. The regulator found no construction phase plan for any of the company's work, served an improvement notice, and prosecuted when it was not complied with. The sole director was convicted personally.
The Health and Safety Executive published the outcome on 17 August 2026. Adam's Building Construction Limited was engaged by a homeowner to build an extension at the rear of a property in Bradford. Work started in January 2024. The extension was raised over the existing gas service pipework, and the flue serving the property's gas boiler was not repositioned. The household, a homeowner and her two children, was left exposed to the risk of gas leaks, fire, explosion and carbon monoxide poisoning.
On 22 May 2024 a building control inspector from the City of Bradford Metropolitan Council attended and found that the boiler flue was terminating inside the extension. The gas distributor was called in and found the installation immediately dangerous, with the boiler still running and the flue discharging into the new room. The supply was cut off. The household was without gas for several weeks and the remedial work cost it around £4,000.
Warned during the works
The investigation established that building control inspectors had warned the company several times while the works were under way that the pipework and flue needed to be properly relocated. That is the ordinary pattern in this class of case. The hazard was identified by a third party, in writing, before anyone was hurt, and the record of those warnings became the evidence.
The wider finding was about systems rather than this one job. The company's sole director could not show inspectors that a construction phase plan had been prepared for any of its building work, all of which was carried out for domestic clients. The regulator served an improvement notice requiring the company to put a system in place for producing written construction phase plans on projects where it was the principal contractor. The company did not comply with that notice.
Everyone in control of domestic building work must ensure that a suitable and sufficient construction phase plan is in place before building work commences, so that no-one faces the kind of risks this family were exposed to.
David Beaton, Inspector, Health and Safety Executive
The inspector described the incident as a tragic accident waiting to happen, and said the absence of proper planning and of suitable arrangements for relocating the pipework and appliances could easily have had fatal consequences for the family living in the property.
The charges, and where the personal liability came from
The company pleaded guilty to breaching section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, the duty owed to persons other than employees, and section 33(1)(g), which makes it an offence to contravene a requirement imposed by an improvement notice. At Leeds Magistrates Court on 7 August 2026 it was fined a total of £10,000 and ordered to pay costs of £4,263.
The director was convicted separately under section 37(1), which attaches personal liability where a body corporate's offence is committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to neglect on the part of, a director or similar officer. He also pleaded guilty under section 33(1)(e), for not providing relevant information when required to do so by the lead inspector. He was fined a total of £1,000 and ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £400. The court was told that neither the company nor the director continues to work in the construction trade.
Two points are worth carrying into any domestic project. The first is that a contractor working for a householder is usually the principal contractor and carries the client duties as well, so the construction phase plan is its own obligation and not something a homeowner is expected to produce. The second is that an improvement notice is not an administrative letter. It is the step that converts a management shortcoming into a standalone offence, and in this case the notice, rather than the gas work itself, is what carried the larger part of the sentence.