RAAC - PII implications

avenues against product manufacturers (s.149) and remediation orders, are also

likely to be less relevant.

Even with the extended secondary limitation period for latent defects under Section

14A of the Limitation Act ought not to give rise to significant exposures. This

provides claimants with a separate limitation period of 3-years starting from when

they had the relevant knowledge and the right to bring the claim. Defendants will be

able to point to the long history of problem reports into RAAC as evidencing that the

3-year period started to run many years ago. The 15- year ‘long stop’ on liability

under Section 14B of the Limitation Act should also provide some protection against

these historic claims.

One potential, albeit we hope slim possibility, is that Government will legislate to

extend limitation periods to bring these time-barred claims back into play. The

unexpected extension of the limitation period for DPA claims, from the original 6

years, to 15-years in the draft Bill, to 30-years when the BSA was enacted still loom

large in insurer’s minds.

Should claims start to arise, the chief worry will be the challenges of the likely loss of

documentation and absence of witness evidence, given the length of time that has

passed since the services were likely completed.

Going forward, there is obviously the potential for claims to arise consequent upon

the surveys undertaken and we recommend mitigating steps above. In particular, we

are concerned about the potential for problematic certification to be used and any

such documents should be treated with utmost care.

• What steps could the market take if this were to become a major cause of

claim?

There is obviously precedent in how the insurance market could respond to areas

where there are systemic problems. Asbestos, pollution and more recently ‘Fire

Safety Notification’ are all examples of the insurers addressing systemic – if not

existential – risks to the insurers’ businesses.