BuildROI – For Government

For Government

A time-limited, independently evaluated pilot to find out whether independent verification can cut the cost of poor and unfinished building work.

Current Position: BuildROI is at proposal stage: no live projects have been completed. We are seeking public funding, from government or through a funding competition, for a six-month pilot of independent verification, and for an independent evaluator chosen by government to assess the results. We are also looking for one delivery partner, ideally an MMC manufacturer that also delivers retrofit and traditional build. None has been agreed yet. This is a proposal for investigation, not a request to commit on trust.

Why This Matters to Government

Government estimates that people lost over £10.3 billion on home and garden maintenance in 2024 through losses, overpriced work or unfair practices. It is a survey-based estimate with a wide margin of error, but it shows the scale. Where government funds or guarantees the work, that cost lands on the taxpayer too. The Chartered Trading Standards Institute has warned that publicly funded schemes such as the Warm Homes Plan can give fraudulent traders an opportunity.

The National Audit Office found that under the ECO4 and Great British Insulation Scheme retrofit schemes, 98% of homes fitted with external wall insulation, around 22,000 to 23,000 homes, have major issues that need fixing. It put this down to weak controls and oversight.

Work that never happens has a cost too. Research by the Federation of Master Builders and the HomeOwners Alliance found that one in five homeowners have put off work because they couldn't find a builder they trust, and estimated that this lack of confidence costs the UK economy £11.2 billion a year.

BuildROI is proposing to test whether a cost that already exists can be made visible, verifiable and reducible. See the full figures on our homepage →

Sources: UK Government, 28 August 2026; CTSI; Consumer Detriment Survey 2024 (CMA/NatCen); National Audit Office, October 2025; FMB and HomeOwners Alliance, April 2026.

We Agree With the Government's Logic

The Warm Homes Plan commits £15 billion to upgrading homes. We agree with its reasoning. We simply want to test one part of it on a much smaller scale and at far lower cost, and if it doesn't work, we stop.

Government says	BuildROI logic
"Work carried out in consumers' homes should be done right first time, with clear installer accountability…" Read it →	This is BuildROI's purpose in one line. We test a way to make "right first time" verifiable.
"…by investing now, we will leverage private finance… and help create an affordable and self-sustaining market over time." Read it →	The same model: a 5% public stake alongside the homeowner's 10%, to test whether the return justifies a lasting partnership.
"Without assurance that work undertaken in their home will be of high quality… consumers will not have the confidence to make upgrades to their homes." Read it →	Without that assurance, why would a homeowner contemplate having any work done, never mind retrofit? BuildROI provides it: money held in escrow and released only when an independent PM has verified the work.
"This approach would allow us to test different approaches and expand the scheme in response to demand." Read it →	Our pilot: small, independently evaluated, and expanded in response to demand, but only once it's proven to work.

Quotes from the Warm Homes Plan as published on GOV.UK, updated March 2026.

Alongside What Government Has Announced

Government has announced an Approved Code for traders and Trusted Payments, a system that links payments to project milestones. Both help people choose traders and protect their money.

BuildROI adds something different: independent verification that each milestone has actually been met, an evidence trail for every job, and the data to show what works. Every verified job is recorded the same way, building an independent record of what works in UK home improvement, what fails and what it costs, useful to homeowners, builders, insurers, manufacturers and government alike. The pilot would test whether that adds value.

What the Pilot Would Tell You

The pilot measures governance performance, not building volume. An independent, ex-builder Project Manager verifies each milestone and captures photographic evidence before payment is authorised. The pilot then asks six questions:

Disputes

Do they fall, and are the ones that remain settled on evidence?

Defects

Are fewer found, and found earlier, when they are cheaper to fix?

Payments

Are payment cycles more stable for builders and manufacturers?

Evidence

Is it complete, consistent and repeatable enough to stand up to scrutiny?

Compliance

Does it align with what insurers and regulators need to see?

People

Are homeowners, builders and manufacturers more satisfied?

Government receives the independent evaluator's report, BuildROI's own Pilot Outcome Report, and a recommendation on whether to go further.

For the detail of what would be recorded and reported, and an illustrative example of the report, see the Government Overview →

How the Evaluation Works

So that nothing in the findings can look as though we influenced it:

The evaluator is chosen and paid by government, not by BuildROI or the delivery partner.
They start around week 6–8, and receive all the evidence gathered since day 1.
BuildROI and the delivery partner would provide access to evidence, data, jobs and people, and would have no role in the findings.
The evaluator reports to government.

The Pilot at a Glance

The six-month pilot starts only once the jobs are confirmed. From the funding decision to the final report is about 12 months: roughly three months confirming jobs, six months of pilot and three months of follow-up.

For the month-by-month plan, see the Government Overview →

What We Are Asking Government to Fund

Fixing this takes money, and we are upfront about that. The ask is for a time-limited pilot, and has two parts:

The pilot operation

BuildROI's Project Managers, evidence systems, compliance, travel and oversight, for a six-month pilot on a mixed set of 30 jobs: MMC, retrofit and renovation, and traditional builds, including larger single-home builds.

An independent evaluator

Chosen and paid by government, so the findings cannot be influenced by BuildROI or the delivery partner.

The delivery partner, once agreed, would contribute a senior person to work alongside the founder, at its own cost. The pilot does not rely on fees from homeowners or builders.

Funding would be released in two stages: a small first stage for set-up and job confirmation, and the main funding once an agreed minimum number of jobs is confirmed. The pilot would be scaled to the jobs actually confirmed.

Bottom line: We are not asking government to believe this works. We are asking government to investigate whether it does, so any decision comes from evidence. If it works, it grows and we all gain. If it doesn't, it stops. Anything beyond the pilot is a separate decision, made on the evidence.

A Phased, Evidence-Gated Approach

Each phase only proceeds if the one before it justifies it. If the evidence says no, it stops.

Phase 1 — Pilot
A mixed set of 30 jobs, run together, to establish whether independent verification produces a measurable return, judged by an independent evaluator.
Phase 2 — Larger Trial
If the pilot's evidence holds, a larger trial tests whether the same return holds at scale, with funding proposed on that evidence.
Phase 3 — Rollout
Only if Phases 1 and 2 succeed: wider rollout, with any further funding and later incentives, including for builders' pensions, designed on the evidence.

If It Works: Where It Leads

The pilot is the only ask now. If it turns out as hoped, this is where it leads: a model where the people who benefit share the cost, and every payment is tied to verified work.

Homeowners: 10%

Added to the overall cost of the job and paid as each milestone is verified. It is in line with the 10% contingency the Federation of Master Builders recommends as a general rule, and the aim is that independent verification reduces how much contingency is needed. It is paid in addition to a contingency, not instead of one. Homeowners also receive a Resale Ready File they can keep adding to, which we believe can help when they sell, remortgage or insure. The pilot would test that.

Government: 5%

Invoiced monthly, in arrears, for the milestones verified that month. Government pays only for independently verified work, which makes it a backing for a solution built around return on investment. Government's own Warm Homes Plan says investment in home upgrades will "strengthen public finances", and that only holds if the work is done right.

Together that is a 15% fee, with government's share half the homeowner's. Everything is paid against verified milestones, so changes to a job are recorded automatically, and a job that stops pays only for the work verified.

None of this is requested for the pilot. It would only be proposed if the pilot succeeds, and on the evidence it produces.

Contingency guidance: Federation of Master Builders.

Data builds the case. People make it work.